php-deluxe.net - description Categorization Archive 4

Categorization/Archive 4

This is an archive of . It was created on 4 September 2004. Some discussion dated on or after 20 August 2004 was left on that page instead of being moved to this archive.

= Bugs, malfeatures, and RFEs =

== RFE: Blue/red issues ==

The blue/red confusion seems to be a recurring issue. Should the system show categories that contain no text, but do have articles or subcategories, as blue, not red Or should new categories just have by default the text 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I think the red provides a good visual cue. — 04:57, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

== Category talk page ==

When starting a new talk page I was presented with this slightly erroneous message: Wikipedia does not have an entry on Geography of King County, Washington yet. ... 20:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== RFE: Auto-move category ==

(Can I add that it would be desperately useful to have a bot that shifted all articles from one category to another - if we had this, we could switch categories by creating a new and deleting the old - the history of a category probably isn t importantenough to retain). 16:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Confused categorisation of Kelvin ==

03:16, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

:Categories have problems with slow updating. I don t know why. -- 04:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::I can see that, but the other articles I tagged with SI base units ( 15:06, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

I went to 15:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A related issue is some items bizarrely sorted under C . For instance 16:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== Query - finding pre-existing categories ==

(moved from project page)

Is there any way of finding out what categories already exist without trawling through the category list a few hundred at a time i.e. it would be nice to be able to have a list of categories subdivided alphabetically or a way of searching the list. Is this available already and I ve just missed it If not, is there any likelihood of it happening in the future 09:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I agree, it would be very helpful if there were a better category search or browse mechanism. I can see it s going to take time to implement something that can keep up with the fluid nature of categorization, though.

:The best defense is probably to get to know your favorite categories as well as you can; browse through the various trees and branches from time to time, help reorganize or prune as necessary, and just generally get to know the names and preferred formats of the categories you use most. I know this isn t helpful when you re trying to find a category in an area you re not familiar with, though.

:In the meantime, one useful method I ve found is to go ahead and edit the article or subcategory you d like to classify. Type in your best guess at the name of the proper category/ies, AND the name of a larger category that you re sure exists, which could be a (grand)parent (i.e. , as specific as you can get). Then use the SHOW PREVIEW, not the Save page button. Look for the previewed categories at the very bottom of the page (it may be below the Preview edit box, depending on your Preferences settings). If your best guess is blue, you ve hit upon an existing category tree; if red, it doesn t exist or is spelled or worded differently. Remember to use plurals, and to use lower case for all words that not proper nouns.

:If you can t find your best guess, Shift-Click on the blue link to the larger category (or right-click and select Open in new window/tab or equivalent). This will open the larger category in a new window so you can browse down through the branches to the proper place where you will either find a useful existing category, or discover that an important one is missing, and most importantly, you ll see what the naming convention is for the category.

:Even if your best guess is blue, it s usually a good idea to shift-click on the Previewed link to browse other category members anyway -- you might find your article doesn t really fit, or that there is a more specific subcategory already available (i.e, , to name one where I had to clean up after myself recently).

:Now you can go back to your other window or tab, which should still be open to the Preview page. Put the proper category name into the Edit box, and delete the larger category you used as a tool in Preview. If the necessary category doesn t exist, add the category name according to convention anyway, and Save. Click on the new category link to check that the assigned category has a parent and a description. Please assign newly created categories to their proper place in the tree right away -- finding and fixing is a pain! Please add a description too if you find one missing or stubbish.

:Good luck! 06:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:: From the phrasing, I think they are looking at the alphabetical list of all categories. Probably because that is the destination of the word Category which is in front of all category entries. It would be better if that anchor pointed at a page which tends to be of wider use. Perhaps 18:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC))

::: Or )

::::Yes, you re right, was looking at the alphabetical list. And you re also right, starting from Category:Main page/fundamental I wouldh have found what I was looking for much quicker. Thanks for the tip. I still think a way of searching the list would be useful, but I appreciate everyone s help. Cheers 19:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==Wanting to Start a Category==

I would like to start a Category. First there are no directions anywhere on how one starts a category. I put a new Category and it shows up in red. I can t firgure out how to make it blue. Second I found directions at mediwiki but there is nothing about starting a new name category. Third, For the Classics for topics like that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. I know they have a category already but Classics needs their own category and ancient Greece and Ancient Rome need to be sub-categories for this one. And what should it be named Classics , Classical , Classical Dept. (my choice), Western Classics , ... If I am a classical scholar and want to go to all subjects dealing with the Classics what should be the category name 22:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Put in the 00:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:It still appears red. I added [Category:Human] to vice and I have added Category:Vice to the Human category and it still appears red. So I am still not doing something right. I also added a sentence in it and it still appears red. 18:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::You ve got it the wrong way around: Don t add Category:Vice to Category:Human, you do the other way around, you add Category:Human to Category:Vice (so that Category:Vice is a subcategory of Category:Human). Adding Category:Vice to Category:Human would make Category:Human a subcategory of Category:Vice, which would still not have a parent or any text, and would therefore still be red. -- 00:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I have a similar problem with creating a new category, specifically Category:Texans . When I insert 21:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) :UPDATE: I went back and made Texans a subcategory of People . Now, if I go directly to the Texans category page, it looks fine. But if you click to any of the people listed on it, the category links at the bottom of those pages still send you to the edit page! -- 22:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::Whether or not the category is red or blue depends on whether or not there is content in the category itself, above and beyond having articles that are members. Since every category should be a category of some other category, all categories should have content, and hence blue. If you don t know what category to put a new category in, edit it and add 07:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Well, I finally got it to work, but I don t know why it worked. I had already put text in the edit box (explaining who should be included), but that had no effect. Finally, I went back and moved the category tags to the bottom of the article, and that seemed to do it -- even though a previous category had been listed at the top of the article and was working just fine. And even though all the categories I ve added to new pages at WikiQuote work okay at the top of the page. All of which sounds like squirrely wikicode to me. -- 15:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::The quickest way I have found to deal with this problem is this: In any articles assigned to the category before the category was created 1) delete the category link, 2) save the article, 3) paste the category link back into the article, and 4) save the article. This technique forces everything to update. But you have to do it for each pre-existing article that was already linked into the category. 17:45, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don t know if this is a bug or a caching problem or what. I have noticed that when I delete items from a category, they don t always show up right away, but adding seems to be pretty reliable. It seems to get worse if I obsessively hit Reload in the category in a vain attempt to make things deleted go away. In this situation, I would recommend doing something else for an hour or two and see if it fixes itself, rather than doing lots of work to force it. -- 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Bug - non-existant page in category ==

Check out 12:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Remove top whitespace, mv category+interwiki links to bottom ==

I ve noticed that the category links, interwiki headers, and carriage returns before the first line of visible text in an article cause extra whitespace to show up if they are placed at the top of the page. This is just a

:But if the categories and interwiki links are moved to the bottom, then extra whitespace shows up at the bottom! This is a bug in mediawiki: [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/group_id=34373&atid=411192 report it] and get it fixed instead of asking people to change all the articles. 22:45, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

:: It s been reported already. 01:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::It s less ugly at the bottom, and putting categories and interlanguage links at the bottom is standard style. -- 02:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::But for how long if you move it to the bottom it will just slowly creep up again as people start adding new sections which will be written below the content in place, so sure, do that, but it will be back up again next week. -- 03:09, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

::::I have never seen this happen. It d be an issue on talk-like pages like this one, but on a regular article -- 03:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::::Me neither. 12:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I ve discovered that if you put the Categories and Interwiki links at the bottom and fill in the blank lines with HTML comments like this:

... last line of article

[ca:...] [gd:...]

:then the blank space is usually cancelled out. I also find this aesthetically satisfying because I believe in commenting everything to heck and back . A slimmer stretch for justification is that if (as I sincerely hope) this meta-information is eventually explicitly separated from the main text, a 13:05, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

==Categories issues==

I m putting this here because I couldn t figure out one logical place among all the categorization/category pages to put this request. *First, every page that is a member of a category has a link at the bottom of the form . *Second, the top of Special:Categories needs to display text that helps you to get someplace useful from there--first, tells you what it s a list of ( all existing categories and subcategories ) and, next, tells you how to get someplace useful (see first point). Thoughts 05:40, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) :You are quite correct. The 15:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::OK--good--now, how do these get changed I think I remember seeing a page for text that appears on special pages but I can t find it; and I have no clue where the destination for the Categories link is defined. 01:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the Mind subcategory - Category:Conscious - Is there a way to move a category page, so as to rename this category Conscious is an adjective in current English usage. It is not used as is the Unconscious of the psychology field. It appears that the sense of this category is the Conscious mind . Thus I am interested in learning how to replace the category Category:Conscious with Category:Conscious mind . 08:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Categories broken ==

###Note:### See the thread below #Categories with sort keys are not sorted properly for discussion of related alphasort issues.

Is it just me or are categories broken I just went to 14:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Not just you, all categories I checked are broken. The breakage occured less than an hour ago. 14:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I thought it was me too. They re still broken now. Is anyone looking it or should we post something about it somewhere Guess I ll wait before adding 15:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::There s at least one developer on the job at the moment. -- 18:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::The bug has been found, we re working on a fix. -- 19:22, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

:::::Gabriel has fixed the bug. Should be fine now. -- 20:22, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

::Still not fixed, Category:Athletes for example show all the athletes in alphabetical order but just in one long sentence instead of under sections A, B, C etc 20:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:All categories I found that were broken have been fixed, and I can t find any new ones. However, there are so many that there may well be more out there and I m not going to be able to find them all. So assistance is welcomed/needed. Also, if they really are all fixed, could Tech support give me a confirmation

:Ones that have been fixed since I mentioned them = (Category:Films by year), (Category:Celebrities), (Category:Feminists), (Category:Ballet), (Category:Antenna teminology), (Category:Clear Channel radio stations), (Category:Clear Channel Communications), (Category:Mosques), (Category:Sportspeople), (Category: Fictional Jews), (Category:Fictional gays and lesbians), (Category:Islamic mythology), (Category:Christian music), (Category:Aliens), (Category:English athletes), (Category:Environmental law), (Category:English actors), and (Category:Campaign settings). - 12:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Categories with sort keys are not sorted properly ==

The or piped format), but it does not look correct to me. For example, Talk:One-time pad has a T5 sort key, but comes before Talk:Train station that has a T1 sort key. (these codes are meant to sort the articles by priority). Strangely, others are sorted correctly though, so that it is not a repeatable problem.

Has this problem been seen before Is someone working on it Should I report it somewhere else 20:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: Categories broken , above, has drifted onto this topic. -- 20:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: ###Note:### The relevant subthread of Categories broken has now been moved here, see below.

::Great! 19:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Categories broken :

Is this bug also responsible for the stuff I ve been seeing the last couple of days, which is that several categories have more than one section for a given alphabetical letter For example, 02:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

( ¹ not at all having studied the wiki-software, I would nevertheless strongly assume that the category pages are regenerated regularly -- and that, if the wiki was a small one, they could in fact be regenerated on demand, i.e. per visit )

:If you mean when one letter is shown at the bottom of one column, and again at the top of the next column along, that isn t a bug - it is just about fitting the articles in alphabetically. - 12:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::No there are actually two F sections in the sub-category list: one in the normal place and another at the end. -- 13:20, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I didn t follow the link before. I don t think it s part of the same problem, but it is a problem. Do you have links to the others - 13:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::I notice the misplaced sub-categories both use the piped syntax: 13:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::::Good point. I removed the piped File formats, and the two subcategories went into C without creating a new C . Putting them under F was illogical, anyway. But, still, they shouldn t have done that; even piped they should have gone under the first F . - 15:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::::: Putting them under F was illogical, anyway . Nope, it was in fact very logical -- the word computer in those cases, and inside that category, is of no informational value whatsoever, so pipe-sorting the subcats was the only sensible thing to do. I will therefore put it back. However, we agree of course on the main thing here: such alphabetical category sorting is most probably meant to work! -- 21:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::::::I tried to put Computer file formats back into cat Software in the -eh- sorted mode, i.e. I put the pipe-sort -inclusive code 23:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To answer the original question: This isn t a new bug, I ve seen it mentioned somewhere before, and I have also encountered it. Piped and non-piped category references are sorted separately. The only way to fix it is to add the piped sort key to every entry. I don t know if this bug is on a developer s to-do list. 03:02, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

:I don t think the bug s as clear-cut as that. See, for example, 19:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::I wouldn t say the bug and the cause of the bug are clear-cut, but the work-around really is that simple. If you added piped sort keys to all subcategories in 04:34, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

:::I repeat that I hope the responsible developer(s) will notice and fix this bug, if at all possible. It s really quite annoying (*sigh*). Sorry for not being constructive. I should go to bed. -- 04:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

08:02, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

=Naming Issues=

==Disambiguation of Categories==

Actually not disambiguation, strictly speaking, but Categories whose names are too general in the world s namespace. The specific example is which turns out to contain information about Star Wars characters and not a reference to either governmental systems or Plato.

My question is this: are we following the same system we do with the main articles, i.e. should this category be or should it be something else

:I think the system of government would probably appear as Category:Republics while Plato s Republic would be a single article somewhere more appropriate. I don t see a need for redirection in this case. 06:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:You shouldn t add an article to a category you ve never seen before, so AFAIK that kind of disambiguation is unnecessary. It would also be redundant, since the information is already contained in the category itself (the list of its parent categories). The name of 22:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Conceptual categories ==

The present Category system seems tied to words, not to concepts. 21:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) *Wouldn t that be extremely unweildy 22:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== dee dus vons and vans ==

I vote for du Preez to be listed as 21:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:See , 2004-06-29t18:35z

== naming convention for Cities by Country ==

I was about to add 20:26, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

:Ooops.. see 23:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Categorization Naming Conventions ==

I was wondering what people thought of the current categorization scheme. Most of the categories seem to be created (Somewhere) (Something). I think it looks better and is more formal to use (Something) of/in (Somewhere). Ie. Canadian Banks vs Banks of Canada. 11:40, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

:On an unrelated note, I saw you inserting 11:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::Jiang, while I see your point about trying to keep it NPOV as far as Taiwan is concerned, I don t feel like this change is needed. When someone comes along (like that ll ever happen) looking for info on Banks in Taiwan, they re going to look in 12:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::As for the thing about China, that is a landmine I am not going to step on. Do you have examples for your idea As for Hong Kong and Macau, they ARE part of the People s Republic. Just as Puerto Rico and the Bermuda are part of the US and the UK respectively, a dependent, not an independent country. Any, the issue at hand is that of naming conventions regarding about order, not countries and NPOV. 12:37, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I m well aware that HK and Macau are part of the PRC. However, Hong Kong and Macau are governed under a distinctly different economic systems than the mainland. When it comes to banks and companies, it really helps the reader to keep these regions separate. They re considered separate countries for economic purposes (APEC, WTO, etc). Economic topics for separate economies deserve separate categories.

We use the combinations Mainland China/Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macau for neutrality when politics is not the subject so the territorial claims are left ambiguous. see 13:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:From naming conventions (chinese) In particular, the word China should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People s Republic of China or with Mainland China. Similarly, the word Taiwan should not be used if the term Republic of China is more accurate. What in my naming scheme conflicts with this There is a note in the 13:12, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC) ::I can add a note to the bank articles on a similar line, as I think that would help. 13:17, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Neither you nor I am proposing a Category:Banks of China to cover only the PRC. We didn t even propose Category:Banks of China at all. In this case, Republic of China is not more accurate. It s only more accurate in a political context ( President of the Republic of China vs. President of Taiwan ). We re now implying that the ROC and PRC are separate countries limited to their current jurisdictions. Instead, I cite The term Mainland China is a term which can used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China. A non-political subject deserves a non-political description. Yes, a description within the category helps, but still... And why not separate the economies when people would like to see them separate -- 14:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It s too bad we can t define 15:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC))

== (items) of (area) categories ==

Regarding - it doesn t appear that anything was decided one way or the other. I ve just started some categorising Tasmanian rivers - I created Tasmanian geography , made it a sub-category of the existing Australian rivers , which I then added to Australian geography . Unfortunately, I then found Geography of Australia already existed. I think it should be decided one way or another. Should it be done differently with people

I think Australian sportspeople, Australian musicians, sounds better than Sportspeople of Australia, Musicians of Australia. But I think Islands of Australia, Bridges of Australia, sounds better than Australian islands, Australian bridges.

Informal vote 02:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

: Problem is that they are not always the same, because someone could be of Australia but not be an Australian, no And what about those for which the nationality and ethnicity are mixed up Chinese sportspeople and Sportspeople of China are very very different. So I would vote for the X of Y option to be the clearest. 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe with countries it is different than with other political divisions. We don t use Vermontian geography or Californian rivers . To be consistent it would have to be Australia rivers or Australia bridges . That is why I would vote for your 2nd option: (items) of (area) .Maybe this is one of the few places that subpages would actually work for indicating subsets: Rivers/Australia or Sportspeople/Australia . 04:48, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

*People

Australian sportspeople

**# 02:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) **# 23:01, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC) **# 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sportspeople of Australia

**# 04:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC) **# 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other

*Places

Australian rivers

**# 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rivers of Australia

**# 02:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) **# 04:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC) **# 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other

= Years =

== ==

Discussion moved to 22:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==[Category:As of 2004] ==

On a related note, it may be worthwhile to do 20:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) *Good idea, though I think that 04:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) **I m not sure if this would work. In the current system, there can be various data with different . **For more specific fields this may work, e.g. . -- User:Docu ***Another related possible category is 01:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If this is done, it should be placed on the talk page. It isn t really something random readers need to see. 14:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Years (again)==

Please see . -- User:Docu

= Should templates be used to add articles to categories =

(There are also active discussions of this on .)

There are a number of templates that are inserted into articles that need some kind of special attension. Specifically:

I have proposed adding these templates to appropriate categories, which will slowly cause the articles they are inserted into to join the categories, as the articles are edited. As with everything wiki, there is disagreement.

Pros:

This will cause an alphabetical list (category) to be automatically generated which does not need direct maintenance of all the articles with the template.

The category format is better than the format in What links here and lists all articles, rather than just the first several.

Pages renamed would be updated in the category list. Redirects don t always stay pointing to the correct article.

If the template is removed from the article, the page is instantly removed from the category, and won t linger until someone discovers it.

There are a lot of lingering stubs in wikipedia. Perhaps if there was a somewhat unified list in an easily browsable form, people would pick more of them off and expand more articles.

Cons:

This duplicates the functionality of What links here which could be enhanced.

It is not the point of categories and is just plain silly. --Maximus Rex

It is bad to mix things which are in the encyclopedia with maintaince material

The categories could get huge and the category system might not be ready for that.

Adds the stub message twice, first the template text, then a tall line with Cat:Stub.

Apparently there are technical performance issues with modifying the template that is included in so many articles, so this should be decided once, and not unilaterally decided by one or two people. I would appreciate it if anyone could add to the arguments above (pro or con!). Perhaps we could have a vote or something later. -- 04:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I think the Cons are very strong, and not matched with the pros. My preferred solution is This duplicates the functionality of What links here which could be enhanced . 12:47, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::I m not really much in favor of using temporary categories like see my comment further up on (here on Village pump). -- User:Docu

: However, does it work Does including a cat: on a template cause all pages to which it is added to belong to the category also This is of course useful for maintaining other pages with categories. : It may be a good thing, to present a back-link to other pages needing cleanup prominently on the page, but it may be redundant to go about this through means of a category, however. : I don t know... ::Yes, it works, but I think a page has to be purged/touched before the cat shows up. 13:28, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Docu has suggested several alternatives to categories, but none of them work. I will list them on 04:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) them

:Alternatives to using . -- User:Docu ::I agree, but Disambig is scary. The best alternative to it is a huge list in a page that takes forever to load even on my high speed connection. Do people actually edit that list or is it automatically maintained already If the category is added to the disambig page, I think it might eventually force implementation of the one-letter-per-page breakup of category pages that are huge... -- 04:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:::It has to be manually maintained. I did a bit of work on that a few months back, and it s a bit of a pain; I d love to see some method of automating it developed, either by categories or by fixing what links here to show all the pages that link there (currently it cuts off after a few thousand or so). 18:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered the vfd link above. (and others) Great idea, I really like browsing the deletable articles this way. -- 15:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I note that 6 out of 7 of these templates include categories now. I m sure that more of them out there do not (but I have not found them). This in itself is sort of a consensus. The question remaining is if it should be added to the remining templates. -- 02:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This experiment is progressing with the largest of these, 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of templates linking to Categories for maintenence. 15:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When category browsing supports combinations of categories, having these categories might make it easier for people to fill in details. Someone with veterinarian knowledge could look in appropriate categories to find stub articles. ( 15:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC))

= Categories and lists =

It s most unclear to me, how lists and categories covering the same area should be handled. I stumbled about this problem at and sub-categories like . It s all a mess and all lists/categories slightly differ.

It seems not wise to remove won t display subcategories inline. Is there a possibility or plan, to pull in subcategories inline below some threshold of number of entries

Also note - should these be merged

11:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:The categories would probably want to be consistent with each other.

:If you plan to remove the annotations on .

:If . We might want to build a tool to enable synchronization of the two. -- User:Docu

I guess 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

=Categorising Wikipedians=

I wondered whether we could have categories for wikipedians To prevent abuse all categories should be self assigned and categorisation of others an offence. One benefit would be that Wikipedians could then form groups of interests. For example, I m interested in comedy and if a category Wikipedian comedy fans (for eg) were created I could then contact them in some way on issues of interest.

Has anyone else floated this idea Any thoughts -- 02:03, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

:I don t particularly care for the idea, but if it is done, it should be in the wikipedia: name space, not in the main namespace. Your choice of title is also a bit long and redundant. -- 06:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I guess I was thinking it would be Wikipedians:Comedy fans - which would take it out of the main namespace (I completely agree it can t be part of the main namespace)... and that leads me to think that perhaps any registered user would come under category:wikipedians automatically. -- 14:12, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

:::I don t have an opinion on if we should do it, but I know it can be done, as I categorized my 09:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::::That link doesn t seem to work for me Gentgeen . And it raises the question for me whether people feel that you should have done what you ve done... Or is it, horror of horrors, frowned upon. -- 14:12, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

:::Sorry, sometime in the last day or two the syntax to make links to wikibooks changed. This one should work.

::::Um. Nope! -- 22:37, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

:::::Both links work for me. 23:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= POV/Dispute Issues =

== Category Painters ==

I ve been doing some work in filling out some articles on artists and appear to have run into an edit war whilst rationalising 19:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==How should disputes be handled==

What should be the procedure for handling disputes over whether or not an article should be in a category when consensus cannot be reached On a regular article page you can compromise, but with categories the article is either included or it isn t. See .

===List of possibly POV categories===

We as a group have begun in a few different places around WP to identify a potential problem with POV in categorization. It seems this is happening when a category is created that has a negative connotation and no self-evident criteria for inclusion/exclusion. (It probably could also happen with a category having an extreme positive connotation, but I haven t seen that come up yet.) I think it may be useful to understand more fully just which actual, current categories are subject to this phenomenon, so that we may draw better-grounded conclusions after inspecting a more full set of actual examples. To that end, I m starting an alphabetical list here (feel free to chip in) of categories I think are likely to cause POV controversy. -- 01:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(added by Postdlf)

(see for example [http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/pollingincomming=1&event_id=779]) (added by Anthony)

(added by Ardonik)

(added by Fuzheado)

===Comments===

I ve started adding to the list, but really there are a whole lot more, more than I care to waste my time enumerating. 14:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don t understand how is POV at all—that s the only perplexing addition to me. Here s my take on the rest:

**The ones that I agree definitely have irredeemable POV problems and should be deleted are: I think would be too large and not very interesting—it s just not all that notable of an accomplishment anymore, however far beyond my reach it is. ; ) ***I don t see these all as irredeemable . As a spot check in 21:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ****Don t get me wrong, I m all for separating pseudo- science and archaeology from the legitimate practice of each. I just don t know how easy it is to get a consensus as to what falls in those categories. 23:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ****The appliation of scientific method can be trickier and less strict than we might think. In 01:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) ***I don t think even billionaires could be NPOV. Presumably you re talking about net worth, converted to American dollars, but that s not something which can be determined in an objective way. As for sports, did you read the link There is a lot of disagreement over what constitutes a sport. 10:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) **I think , who regardless of whether her husband did it, was undeniably murdered and so was objectively a crime victim. As long as the legal system is actually supplying the definitions, then the categories can be NPOV. **As long as the subjects included in as a religion either, but the definitional problem of what is or isn t a religion doesn t necessarily render religion a POV categorization. ***A good criteria for Fictional X is that it must be depicted in a work of fiction, and not exist outside of that fiction, i.e, orignial depiction in fiction. -_ 21:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ****Fictional X isn t POV but part of a scheme to make it possible (in the future) to exclude fictional X from searches, so that you don t get chemical elements, planets, religions which only exists in works of fiction. Some care must be taken in maintaining these, and it shouldn t be extended to cover religious X, even if it sounds as fictional as StarTrek to atheists. Also some distinction from traditional mythology is called for. There is a 20:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) **I really don t like the idea of categorizing people by race, religion, or sexual orientation, so is highly offensive and POV. Whether someone is one or not is largely a matter of self-identification (how do you label yourself if you are multiracial), and it is inherently POV to think that people are appropriately classified based on what race they are, as if that is a defining trait. It is much less offensive but still problematic to merely include this...information in list articles, because at least that way you re not slapping a classification on the subject of an article, saying this is what he is. **I think , so it s more about where they are or where they have done notable things rather than their birth origin or ethnicity. The problem I see even with this, however, is that in our cosmopolitan modern world, many people are truly of international notability and not identified in the public mind with a particular country. But I don t think that argues for eliminating the whole idea of country classifications, however. ***That s why in *Once again, I think many of the above should be listed on 16:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**There s no problem in discussing all that in the context of an article. The problem is the stark labelling that a category standing alone imposes. Von Daniken, for example, may be discredited by most, but until essentially the whole world is in agreement, there just isn t the requisite certainty for WP to join the bandwagon with a stand-alone label. -- 01:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

21:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==New category policy==

After some suggestions and tinkering, I think 19:56, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) : I think the material in that page on NPOV and categories got trimmed back too far, and is no longer sufficient. In the current version, it warns against article inclusion in a category unless inclusion is self-evident and uncontroversial, but it no longer discusses creation of categories whose very nature will make it impossible to know by self-evident and uncontroversial criteria whether articles should or should not be included, and whose negative or positive connotations will make inclusion/exclusion a POV heated issue. I would re-insert at least some of my earlier material using the hypothetical example 21:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::This got trimmed for two reasons. First, it was trimmed to avoid 21:39, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Ahh, I see your point, and agree fully. However, since I already bothered to gin up the following while you were adding your comment (and am in love with all my own prose), I will anyway as a placeholder propose the paragraph on POV categories be temporarily reconstituted to include an NPOV aside as follows, until we can move it to 21:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)) ::::Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of would be undesirable, as it carries a negative connotation, can only be populated through subjective judgment, and implies Wikipedia has made the damning judgment that the people featured in articles within it are cruel. Further, unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that an article belongs in a potentially POV category, it should not be included. ::::::If we must have an example in this policy, I d like it to be a real one instead of a hypothetical... 22:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

:One more thing: I think the rule against an article appearing in both a category and one of its subcategories should be softened to a usually status. It is usually true. However, there may be times when an article represents such a major item that it belongs in a larger category as well as being classed with its categorical siblings. An example off the top of my head might be including the article 22:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::On a further read of the page, I see you essentially already have this exception in place, so...nevermind... -- 22:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::I was just about to point that out, so good to hear. :) 22:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

== Speaking of NPOV categories... ==

... am I the only one who finds 22:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I think the point is coming, and probably soon, when a great many of the POV Categories listed a few sections above this one will be ready for 22:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I d list them separately - en masse means that if people disagree with one they have to disagree with them all. 22:36, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Indeed they should all be listed and voted on separately. En masse was my shorthand prediction of the outcome of all of those (essentially simultaneous) votes. -- 23:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is anti-gay that Category:Gay people has been deleted, but Category:African Americans , even Category:Mysterious people , have been kept. 22:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It s anti-gay to have a category for gay people but not for straights. I think all the individuals classified under African Americans should be removed too, and I m in favor of deleting Mysterious people. 22:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I agree, but am unable to find where the decision to remove Category:Gay people was made. 22:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Listed ten days ago on 23:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== What belongs in a category guideline ==

After some discussion at 15:00, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

:Ahh, I m guessing that this is a question prompted after a couple of rounds with . Emin is perhaps most famous for specifically _not_ being a painter, but Andy s argument appears to be that she s a painter whether she likes it or not, because she did in fact paint some pictures in her student days. The problem is that this can result in almost anyone and everything being put into every category, including contradictory categories for the same person. :I prefer to see categories in the Object oriented programming sense of an IsA relationship. That is, if you can say the phrase :*X is a Category:Y :without particularly wanting to qualify it, the X probably IsA Y. So :* :*Jackson Pollock is a minimalism - no he was an abstract expressionism. :* (although I m inclined to disagree with that category on the POV gronds discussed above). :*Charles, Prince of Wales is a painter - well he paints watercolours of the Scottish highlands in his spare time, but he is really much more a member of the British Royal family or even a farmer. Heavily qualified, so other categories would be more helpful. :*Tracey Emin is a painter - no one would say that. :So far I ve found about half a dozen articles with category problems under 16:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Your (Conti s) comemnt is full of red herrings and straw men - no-one has suggested putting ervythoing that has to do with Birmingham in that category; nor have Charlie Windsor or Hitler been categorised as painters because they painted some pictures . To suggest either is at best disingeneous and further suggests that you can t support your arguements with anything mroe reasnable.

:::So why have you put 17:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

::::Beacuse he is a painter. 18:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Of course people would suggest Emin is (or at least was) a painter. Have you read her article, or any biography And please don t make statements about what you think my arguents are, without fiorst checking with me - taht way, you won;t make errors such as the above. Rolf Harris categorically (excuse the pun) is a painter. 16:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:: P.S. Andy Mabbitt - who s he 18:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Hmm, X is a Category:Y cannot apply to things like 17:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

::: in my opinion articles like Black Sabbath do not belong there just because they started their career there - they didn t just start their career there . Perhaps it is this ignorance of the subjects concerned, which leads you to be so mistaken regarding their categorisation 18:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::::If so, the article is missing the information why Birmingham was so important to Black Sabbath. It seems you know what you re talking about, so maybe you could add some information about the connection between Birmingham and Black Sabbath to the 18:15, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

:::Well you can in a way. The problem is that the category in this case is not so well phrased. You can say :::* . Some would argue and say it is a seperate town within the conurbation as it says in the Solihull article, but that is a question of where you draw the boundaries. :::*The :::But both those categories are too specific, so you might prefer to incorporate them both in . :::You can also say :::* :::You then have to decide whether that is a useful category, or whether we would be better off with just . Several categories have been sub-divided by nationality when they get too big, few (any) have been further sub-divided by city within a nation. :::Then both 17:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::: 18:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::::As I say its a fuzzy case and up for debate. Pop over to Google and search for the phrases Solihull suburb of Birmingham [http://www.google.co.uk/searchsourceid=q=%22solihull%22++%22suburb+of+birmingham%22] and you will find 112 references that say it is. So Solihull is a suburb of Birmingham can be a true statement. Now try Tracey Emin painter [http://www.google.co.uk/searchq=%22Tracey+Emin%22++%22painter%22] and you will get some 1800 hits, but in every one I ve checked it is not Emin who is being described as the painter. Try it with Conceptual artist and you will get plenty of positive results. That is because Tracey Emin is a painter is currently not a true statement. -- 18:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::::: You will find more than 112 enteries saying that the Holocaust never happened; that the Earth was created ~6,000 years ago, or that we never put men on the Moon. Nevertheless, Solihul is not a suburb of Birmingham. Emin may not be a painter; but then again neither is van Gough. Both were painters. 18:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::::::Andy, it s funny how you can accuse Conti of being at best disingeneous and you yourself can will come back with the same type of remarks. In fact I dare say you may have just proved Solipsist correct! You will find far more references to men walking on the moon than to men never walking on the moon. Likewise if you find so few references to Emin painting, maybe she isn t really known as a painter. You can however refer to her as a British artist since some people would view what she does as real art. — 19:40, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

:And also it would be good to get back to alternative ways of drawing the boundaries for or methods of defining a category. The IsA method might be a good starting point, but it can t be the only approach. Andy, in particular, I would like to hear your views if I haven t defined the broad church correctly. -- 20:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Note there is now some additional guidance on the main Categorization page. ::* If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it s there Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article -- 11:40, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is another idea for deciding whether an article whould go in a particularly category. (I m mainly thinking biographies here.) We already have guidelines on whether a person is considered relevant for an encyclopedia article - . Now look at the category you are considering. Would we have an encyclopedia article on this person, if they had only done the things relating to that category. If not, don t put them in that category.

So for example .

Similarly .

This rule would also work for some of the contentious categories like ) which would then only include people who are in Wikipedia because they are famous as Atheists or for being Gay (using the above IsA rule, would tend to be more inclusive.) We then wouldn t have to go through contortions thinking up narrowly defined category names. Although POV issues may still remain with these particular categories.

Further it helps mark the difference between Categories and the List of xxx articles. -- 11:40, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:I think that is a very helpful criteria Solipsist. 11:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::That sounds incredibly sensible Solipsist, and I think would be a good rule of thumb for settling cases where there is disagreement. 16:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:This would make an extremely helpful guideline. :) -- 17:01, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

So is there a way we can make this policy, or a proposed policy, or whatever is appropriate. -- 19:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Ready for archiving =

== Art categories ==

For those who are interested, I m trying to drum up interest in organising the visual arts categories at 21:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Added to 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Category:Knowledge representation ==

A lot of the issues with the new Wiki Categories have been encountered before. I found related pages were poorly interconnected... so I created 07:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Now listed on project page. -- 03:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Important discussion at Categories for Deletion==

At 14:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Problems with all Categories ==

At the moment, whenever I access any Category I am seeing a blank space between the title and the links to other categories. Is this just me If so, what is going on And if not WHAT IS GOING ON

Thanks. 18:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:It s not just you, but I have not seen anything about what is causing this. 18:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the info. It s worrying stuff. I ve alerted some admin. 18:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::I saw this too, but I think it was a transient problem and seems to be OK now, something to do with the parsing and/or caching engine on the server, but I really have no idea why. If anybody has a proper explanation it would be nice to hear it, so we know that we can be reassured that nothing is lost. -- 15:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::But it isn t OK now. Some have been fixed, but loads haven t and some have only been fixed since I mentioned them. I can t find all the broken categories, especially not alone. - 16:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

=Related policies for review=

==When to create a category==

I ve got a draft of a proposed policy at 00:31, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Note: This article has been moved to .