Wikipedia talk:Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

As scary as it is, we can probably take large chunks of my userpage (and the one subpage) to use to help expand this page. A sizable section of my page is dedicated to categories for people and places. It should make a good basis for expanding. -- Creol(talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Go for it! · Tygrrr... 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Areas to expand or include[change source]

Here is a list of things to be worked out for inclusion. Several just need a basic write-up, several need to have a consistant plan worked up on dealing with them.

  1. Placement of categories on pages (at the bottom, after all templates, before iw's)  Done
  2. Placement of Articles in categories  Done
    • Categories in pages do not overlap; If an article is in Cats A and B, A is neither a child or a parent of B
    • This is also true for several levels of hierarchies
    • Push the article down as far as possible in the cat tree
  3. Creating new categories  Done
    • Three or more articles before creating
    • Category naming conventions - of County, in County, etc
    • Proper categorizing of the category
    • Proper labeling / help text for the category (use {{catmore}})
    • Categories with more than (20?) articles in them, should be split further
  4. Sorting -  Done
    • Sorting for people
    • Sorting with specific titles - The Doors, List of British Astronomers
    • Special sorting practices - (Space), *, !, etc
  5. Special cat tree layouts
    • General geographic layout - Something along the lines of this  Done
    • Musical entertainers  Done
    • Writers/subcats - Problems occur with a person who is a novelist and a poet as poets are almost always a subcat.
  6. People who are included mainly because they are part of an organisation should have their own category in that organisation (as soon as there are more than 2 entries)  Done
  7. Other points to be added..

People[change source]

Categorization guidelines for doing people is done. -- Creol(talk) 14:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplify[change source]

I think the name should be simplified. I suggest Wikipedia:Putting articls in categories. - Huji reply 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Even simpler than that would be Wikipedia:Categories or Wikipedia:Category. Right now, WP:Categories redirects to WP:Category and that page really only has general info on cats which could serve as an intro to the information on WP:Categorization. I would suggest merging the pages and having it located at Wikipedia:Categories (which I like better than WP:Category - singular - for some reason). · Tygrrr... 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - moved to Wikipedia:Categories. I tried to merge in the WP:Category information, but it was just repeating the "Using categories" section here so I split off the discription of categories from that section to use as the lead in and renamed the remaining part of the section "Uncat template" to cover the information left behind. -- Creol(talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming categories[change source]

I'm an administrator from Wikipedia and was somewhat surprirsed to see that there was no WP:CFD. The category I want changed is Category:Nintendo GBA video games (to Category:Game Boy Advance games). Since there are four games now, do I just do it myself and ask an admin to delete the empty cat, or should I wait for a procedure? Cassandra (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Creol(talk) 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but I was wondering if there were any simple bots around to do some of this work...any approved for category moving? Cassandra (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We tend to do it by hand for the most part. Larger jobs are usually handled with AWB rather than contacting a bot user to schedule the job. -- Creol(talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple English considerations[change source]

I've been evaluating Category:Nintendo video games for a little bit now. I've noticed that all the platform categories (Nintendo DS, etc.) are labeled "x video games," where as over on en they are "x games." Were they categorized "x video games" because it's simpler and makes the category less ambiguous? I should have brought this up earlier; I just emptied the Nintendo 64 one, and Creol did the Game Boy Advance one for me. Cassandra (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila[change source]

I wanted to change this category to Category:University of the City of Manila, because I thought the name should be in English. However, I see that there was a category with that name and it was deleted in 2009 because it was empty. Does anyone see a reason not to make the change now? If I change it, I will change the articles that are in the current category. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting categories renamed[change source]

What's the policy for requesting the renaming of categories (where on English Wikipedia we would use {{subst:cfr|target name}})? Od Mishehu (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of category work. I've gotten some categories renamed by requesting it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. With some categories that didn't have many entries, I've gotten it done by creating the new category and manually moving the entries. HotCat is a big help with that. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
One more note: some categories are added to articles with templates. To get those changed, you need to change the templates as well. Would you care to give an example of a category you'd like renamed? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need for a new category?[change source]

The present rubric treats this question in terms of number of entries (see 'Is there a need for a new category?'). It does not treat the obvious idea that a category should be something meaningful and useful (except tangentially in the introduction). Meaningful means: deals with a notable and interesting issue which editors might reasonable want to search. So a category "Men who wore brown shoes" would be silly unless there was some real significance to wearing brown shoes. A category "Married people" would be lunatic (I think) but it may be hard to say why. I think because it's not notable... Well, I protest against categories like "Septuagenarian" which I think are just as silly. It is not notable or interesting. Why do we have it? If we think centenarians are interesting and notable and useful (which I'm sure we do) it doesn't mean we should go on down the line. I can see a case for nonagenarians, but everything else is just normal. Categories below nonagenarians should be deprecated, only to be used when that particular person's age at death is significant. "Dates of birth and death are accidental" and I would add length of life is normally not a significant element in a biography. We should not drift towards the situation in English wiki, where biographies of important people carry an unwieldly number of categories. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I guess I can see keeping centenarians, even though I'm not sure why it's notable that someone reaches an age that happens to have three digits in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
On a related topic, meaningful categories and subcategories should not be arbitrarily deleted because there are not yet 3 examples. This Wiki is a work in progress and there should be no need to have to hunt around for 2 extra stubs when creating the category in the first place was helpful enough.

One example would be that it is much more helpful to divide the contents of overbroad categories like Category:Geography of China into Category:Mountains in China, Category:Rivers of China, Category:Islands of China, etc. Not doing so will eventually produce such swamped cats that they're helpful to no one. However, the existing policy permits WP:POINTy deletions, such as that recently undertaken against Category:Plains of China. Similarly, if I were to add the needful Category:Rulers of QIn to First Emperor of China, I could expect a deletion... or maybe not, since the same editor had no problem congratulating me for creating Category:260 BC births, which only had one entry... or deleting Category:Plains by country despite the time involved in formatting six or seven pages to flesh it out completely.

Really, WP:POINT should already cover this territory but, if some active editors are going to abuse use this rule to make completely arbitrary deletions of useful content, the guideline they're using to shield their edits should simply be removed to protect them from themselves. — LlywelynII 07:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

First course[change source]

An experienced editor has brought "appetizers" as a sub-food category. We do need something for first course dishes, but I would say 'appetizer' is seldom used in Britain. I would say "starters" is most commonly used. Also candidates are the French "entrées" (quite common in England also) or "hors d'œvres". Italian restaurants use "antipasto". I wonder if editors from other English-speaking countries could tell us their local usage. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If "appetizers" is seldom used in Britain, "starters" is seldom used in the US. I would say to follow the standard practice we use in articles: we use the form of English that was first presented. In this case, I would say keep "Appetizers", but we could create a category redirect called "Starters". I would say any of the non-English words are more complex than necessary. By the way, this discussion might have been better placed on the talk page of the category being discussed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)