Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 


proposal for Category:Enzyme disambiguation pages[edit]

Wikipedia:Categorization does not seem to have instructions on how to propose a new category, for discussion or for a more experienced editor to simply create. I suggest that said article should be modified to mention it.

I have noticed many disambiguation articles with multiple entries that are chemicals, usually enzymes, for example, HPSE. There is a Category:Science disambiguation pages‎, which seems awfully broad for this and contains only 4 articles, one of which is an enzyme disambiguation page, DHQD. I would like to propose a subcategory of Category:Science disambiguation pages: Category:Chemical disambiguation pages with its subCategory:Enzyme disambiguation pages, but I want a discussion first. If this is to be done, I think templates should be made, or existing templates modified, e.g. {{Disambiguation|chem}} and {{Disambiguation|enzyme}}.

Also note that DHQD has been set up as a member of Category:Enzyme set index pages. This is a possible path for HPSE and many other pages, but I am not sure if it is the best path. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I'm not keen on adding more and more reader-side categories to dab pages. We could end up with a dab page of 20 items (a person, a place, a ship, a book...) being in 20 categories; for a page that readers do not want to navigate to that's a lot of editor effort, watchlist noise etc (plus blurring the distinction with articles and making it harder to keep dab pages out of article categories). If a particular wikiproject has an interest in a particular dab page (because some/all of the dab entries are within its scope) then they can tag its talk page and hence put it in a category such as Category:Disambig-Class chemicals articles. Note: If there was a consensus here to create such a category you'd still need to have a discussion at Template talk:Disambiguation to get that template changed.
I'm also not keen on things which really should be dabs being rebadged as SIAs. An example where a SIA may make sense is Nitrogen oxide, but DHQD really should be (just) a dab page - e.g. no-one is going to talk about DHQD meaning both the alkaloid and the enzyme so any inlinks to that page should be fixed (and the next thing to turn up abbreviated DHQD may be in a totally different field). DexDor (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Images}}[edit]

template:Images has been proposed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_12#Template:Images -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Lighting and light sources[edit]

I think that it makes little sense that category:lighting is in category:light sources. Lighting as a service and candlepower are quite rightly in cat:lighting, but are not light sources for instance. I think that both categories should be direct subcategories of category:light and that a very large wodge of both categories' entries should be moved to category:types of lamp and that made a subcategory of both of them. SpinningSpark 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I will start this work shortly. I will also unwatch this page so ping me if there are any replies. SpinningSpark 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining?[edit]

I have posted a question at: Wikipedia_talk:Defining#Li Ka-shing. I would appreciate your views. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:21st-century cricketers[edit]

I tried to add Category:21st-century cricketers to Category:21st-century Indian cricketers but I see the following message:

What should I do? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Well even if the category had not previously been deleted, you should not be adding categories that do not exist, the category you want to add should be created first. The discussion that decided to delete this category can be found here. So this category should not be recreated without a new discussion first. SpinningSpark 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: I have just nominated the Indian sub-cat at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 8. I note that you did not create it, and the creator of the category has been blocked. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category tree for Ethnic Greek people vs. Greek people[edit]

Hello,

I notice that a user has recently created a separate category tree for Ethnic Greek people. This user (@Johnpacklambert:) is now blocked indefinitely, maybe for other purposes although it seems relative to BLP categorization. My first reaction would tend against the creation such a category tree, however I'd like to listen here what the opinions are.

I understand that "ethnic" categories are sometimes useful, and I understand the difference between ethnic Greek and Greek (although these terms may each cover very different concepts at different times in history) but I think that:

For these reasons, I think that this new category tree does shows more problems than advantages, and I would tend towards its deletion. However, again, I'd like to listen here what the opinions are. (Also notified Project Greece.) Place Clichy (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I rather agree with Place Clichy. There is scope for differentiating between ethnic Greeks and hellenized people, but frankly, there is little point to it. Then we would have to differentiate between ethnic Greeks who have been acculturated in a different ethnicity, and then hellenized people by origin/ethnicity/etc. and split hairs ad infinitum. In addition, the statement "The category Category:Greek people is for people who are or were nationals of the modern Greece." in the Ethnic Greek people category shows a rather arbitrary limitation of Greek-ness and a narrow definition of nationality/ethnicity to coincide with nation-state borders that I for one am not comfortable with. As Place Clichy points out, there already exists a host of categories for any flavour of "Greekness", we don't have to add more. Constantine 20:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I was thinking of nominating this new hierarchy for merger or deletion, but most of the sub-categories have now been emptied. Are you abandoning it? – Fayenatic London 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a reflection of the fact that the category Greek people is meant for those in some way connected with the modern nation state of Greece, but people insist on putting in Greek categories those who are not so connected, this solves the problem. I have not abandoned it, but keeping it up is a lot of work because some people insist on ignoring how the category tree is designed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The point of this category is to include people who are ethnically Greek but not nationals of Greece. It is to stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories. It is meant to include no nationals of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Why do you consider that the Greek people category is restricted to the citizens of the current state of Greece? This seems like a personal interpretation to me, and not the way Wikipedia categories work. By strictly applying what you suggets, this would mean that there were no Greek people prior to 1821, or that one of the greatest Greeks of all time, Eleftherios Venizelos, was not himself Greek as he was a Cretan at a time when Crete was still Ottoman. As discussed above, the will to "stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories" is not worth the creation of a parallel category tree that can never be correctly populated, among other problems. May I have the friendly suggestion to use other categories such as Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, Greek Cypriot people, People of Greek descent etc. for the purpose you are looking for. @Cplakidas and Fayenatic london: I can see that more Ethnic Greek categories have showed up in the last few days, despite this discussion. I suggest nominating these categories for deletion with a link to this discussion (a process I am not familiar with), for the categories that are not already empty. Place Clichy (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I just found most subcats empty and tagged them for speedy deletion. After that I noticed that in at least one case it was you, Place Clichy, who had emptied them. [1] The standard process is at WP:CFD. Please note for future reference that it is considered "out of process" to empty a category without, before or during a discussion. – Fayenatic London 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved in a friendly discussion with @Johnpacklambert: regarding the same issue with some Albanian related categories, similarly starting with the word "Ethnic". Most of them are empty. I am aware that John had nothing but good intentions of formalizing the categories according to a uniform logic. Anyway, the topic of ethnicity vs nationality in the Balkans is much more complicated. When we talk about Greek, Albanians, Bulgarians we talk about a nation, or conscience, not only ethnicity, and vice versa. Not really connected to the citizenship. The translation "Albanian mathematician" to "mathematician from Albania (Republic of Albania)" may seem right but it is not correct. It may work for Americans, US citizen = National of US, citizen of US, but not for the rest of the nationalities. Saying "...an ethnic Greek..." or "...ethnic Albanian..." can be used inside the articles to give more detailed information about people's origin, not in the very first sentence, infobox, or categories.
As an example, we have an article that states "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an ethnic Albanian mathematician..." - instead of saying "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an Kosovar Albanian mathematician", or "Kosovar mathematician", or "Albanian mathematician from Kosovo". The word "ethnic" does not fit here. The categories follow the same logic. I don't know any non-ethnic Albanian or non-ethnic Greek btw. You are Albanian or you're not. We also have more specific denominations, as Kosovar Albanians, Venetian Albanians, Ottoman Albanians, etc.
How do we call Carlo Giuseppe Verdi (1785–1867) or Temistocle Solera (1815-1878)? An "ethnic Italian" or "Italian"?--Mondiad (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Mondiad raises. These ethnic X categories need to be deleted as they create more confusion and duplication of categorizations. While we are distinguishing the ethnic Greeks/Albanians from Greek/Albanians that lived in a recognized country, we don't we make such distinctions for the Americans before the United States existed? Why for instance are we not saying that John Adams, Sr. was a British citizen, or an "American ethnic"? Perhaps Johnpacklambert knows the answer: These things would create confusion. So do the ethnic X categories. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There were no Grwek people prior to 1821. The attempts to assign people as part of a natuon that they are not are what need to stop. People who were from Crete when it was part of the Ottoman Empire and people from other places not in Greece should not be classed as Greek. We need precision in applying terms and the general disregard for natuonal boundaries and historical realities advocated here is exactly what we do not need. It invites presentism in categories that ignores the reality of the time and feeds modern ethno-natunalistic attempt to isentify past people in ways they did not think of themselves. At the same time the Greeks and other millets in the Ottoman Empire are clear ethno-religious groups. We need the modifier ethnic just as much here as we would for Jews if in the 1940s they had choisen to name their country Judea instead of Israel. An ethnicGreek born, living, creating music and dying in 19th-century Egypt clearly is Greek in some way but not in the sense of natuonality so he can not be placed in Greek by nationality categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talkcontribs) 01:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What a silly idea, that there were no Greek people prior to 1821. I think you are still confusing nationality with ethnicity. When we say Greek people, or Albanian people we mean it firstly in the ethnic sense, and then for the nationality. The nations of Greece and Albania were created in 1821 and 1912 respectively, but they were not created out of nothing. Following your logic we ought to tag Leonardo Da Vinci as an ethnic Italian, not as an Italian, because Italy didn't exist at his time. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Excellent examples: by JPL's logic, there would be no Italian people prior to 1860, no German people prior to 1871. I recognise that Johnpacklambert's efforts are in good faith, and it is always worth mentioning in the body of an article if, for instance, someone is a Kosovo Albanian vs. just an Albanian, or a Greek from Egypt, or an Armenian American. That said, there are already plenty of categories to mention these nuances, and the word ethnic can be understood in so many wrong ways that it is, frankly, not necessary the way it is used here. These "ethnic" categories are more harmful than useful. Place Clichy (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree and I did see a point in it in the beginning, but the more I thought the more I got convinced that it was a redundant duplication. --MorenaReka (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • People still ignore the fact that without the ethnic cartegories we tag people as Greek by nationality who were part of the Ottoman Empire at a time when Greece was a distinct nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we would save ourselves endless headaches like the debates over how to categorize Nicholas Copernicus if we held to such straight forward cut-off times for German and Italian categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny issue with categories[edit]

I recently created Category:NAIA football navigational boxes, but I don't see it in either of its two parent categories, Category:American college football navigational boxes and Category:NAIA football. Have others had this sort of issue? Any idea what's going on? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts needed on title change being proposed to history of video gaming console pages[edit]

A user has placed a request for renaming all of the video game console generations pages (eg, History of video game consoles (third generation) → Third generation of video game consoles).

These pages are used to categorize eras in video gaming history not only on Wikipedia but due to what some believe is a documentable case of citogenesis, has probably helped form a standard naming convention outside of Wikipedia as well. So these pages have some level of influence and visibility beyond this site.

The reason I'm here is that the current structure of the category names is likely flawed and not up to Wikipedia standard, but historically this often becomes a contentious change debating semantics (the last time this came up it sure did) and I believe that if it's going to be changed it should be changed to a Wikipedia standard form. I just want this current vote to have high enough visibility to get a clear consensus so that we're not back here in a couple of years when the next new crop of editors decides they have a better way to phrase the category titles.

So I'm bringing this debate to a greater audience so we can hear your thoughts and help us video game editors in the process. Thanks for your attention and I hope to see your thoughts on this vote. BcRIPster (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages[edit]

I see that the number of articles in Category:Monthly clean up category (Uncategorized pages) counter keeps growing. Just wondering if anyone here ever tries to tackle it? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Films about women[edit]

Doesn't this seem a trifle broad (no pun intended)? The vast majority of films have a female lead character. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably too broad. I think it's probably meant more along the lines of "films with a strong female lead". Although this is a thing in film discourse, it's too interpretive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I raised this previously but nothing came of it. I'm not sure this category is of any real use at the moment. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Looking at current subcats, Films about women include films about couples (Bonnie & Clyde‎, Romeo & Juliet, Jason & Medea), fantasy or otherwise non-human characters (Tinker Bell, Mermaids, Beauty & the Beast, Lilo & Stitch‎) and also, interestingly, Alien (franchise) films‎ and Kill Bill‎. Also, it is a subcategory of Biographical films, which puts Alien in biographical films.
By this definition (is there a definition?), too many films are about women for this category to serve any purpose. On the contrary, categories of films about specific topics like feminism, romance, specific historical figures, all-girl education, lesbianism probably make better category topics. BTW where's Category:Films about men? Any proposal for deletion, or major rearrangement, or partial merger into Women in film, gets my vote. On way to do it is to rename the category into Biographical films about women and to remove everything that does not fit this definition. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay then. I've nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 25). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CfD backlog[edit]

Don't know if it's meaningful to mention it here too but WP:CFD has a backlog of some 150 category discussions to be closed. I left a similar note on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Namespace - category combinations[edit]

I've created a matrix showing which combinations of namespace and high level categories should/do not contain pages. For example, there should be no user talk pages below Category:Articles and there should be no articles below Category:Wikipedians.

The matrix still has quite a few "TBD"s (e.g. is it ever appropriate for a disambiguation page or a talk page to be in Category:Articles?) - I'm hoping to fix many of these before the matrix might be moved into Wikipedia namespace. Suggestions for other ways the matrix might be improved are welcome. DexDor (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New tool: CatCycle[edit]

This may have been around for a while, but I have only just discovered:

I had wasted hours trying to figure out why a category tree trawl using WP:AWB had produced some weird anomalies (categories which should never be subcats of the one I started from), but CatCycle solved the problem in under 60 seconds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A big problem with our category structures[edit]

Take a look at this use of CatCycle.

It shows how in only 32 steps, Category:Expatriate sportspeople in the Soviet Union is a sub-cat of Category:Scotland ... via Category:George W. Bush and Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities.

My use of CatCycle suggests that this sort of problem is widespread. How can we fix it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed time and time again. The belief that this is a problem is a result of mistakenly thinking the category system is, can be, or should be, a strictly logical hierarchy. It has never been that, and it can't function as that without breaking valuable connections between related topics. It has always instead been a network to group related articles, primarily to aid navigation, and secondarily to classify articles by the categories in which they are placed (not to classify them by what connections those categories in turn have at a far remove). The opposing view would sacrifice fundamental connections at individual steps for the sake of what gets connected through "32 steps". postdlf (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand the broad fuzziness, but this is extreme. In this instance, I solved the problem by removing Category:September 11 attacks for Category:Presidency of George W. Bush. Eponymous categories for people are not supposed be used in that way, and there had been some inappropriate categorisation of some broad event categories under the eponcats for recent American presidents. For example, Obama's category had categs for lots of shootings, which didn't belong there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an entertaining and interesting example, but IMHO it is not a problem at all. It would greatly reduce the navigational value of categories if sub-cats could only be made where they contain the same type of thing (person, organisation, work, event...) as the parent category. For instance, it is valuable to link art by country and artists by country. In some cases, sideways-links could be made instead using "see also", but vertical hierarchy links are generally very useful even if they jump into a different type of thing.
The fact that this CatCycle path goes from one military participant to another is an inevitable result of having category hierarchies both for Category:Military units and formations by war and Category:Wars by country. Once we construct both of those, the result is zig-zag category paths like the one in your example. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I have repeatedly seen that Category:Wars by country causes huge category-spread. There is a simple solution: apply the Category:wars involving Foo only to the head article (and any country-specific subcats), not the whole war. That way we don't end up with the entire global history of WWII and its aftermath base being categorised under the all the nations which participated in WWII. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That might be a good solution. However, it might clash with the goal of avoiding category clutter on articles. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Smallcat discussion[edit]

Feel free to join this discussion about whether or not to make the WP:SMALLCAT guideline more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)