Categorization/Archive 8

*Old talk at *Archived main page discussion on Hierarchicalization at *Further discussion at *Further discussion at (archived on 4 September 2004, includes material up to approximately 20 Aug 2004) *Further discussion at Includes material up till about 8 September 2004 *Further discussion at Includes material up till about 30 September 2004 *Further discussion at Includes material up till about 22 January 2005

=Category - Images OF People should not mean WITH people, should it =

Are too many images merely with a person somewhere in the picture being included in the category images OF people 22:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Discussion at

= Super Categories =

This category/supcategory thing needs some rethinking. As I see it, the general rule that if something is in a subcategory, it shouldn t also be in the supercategory often does not make sense. Sometimes the subcategories mark clear distinctions between things, but sometimes the subcategories are just unimportant attributes imposed on the category. I ll give you some examples that make sense:

. This makes sense because:

There is very little overlap between Operattas and Musicals, they are almost distinct categories

Most people looking for a list of works would find this distinction helpful.

The distinction that makes the subcategory is intrinsic to the category, not just a randomly chosen attribute. For instance, the works could be in subcategories that intead of using Operetta and Musicals could have used the year they were composed. This would not be very helpful for someone looking for a list of musicals.

. This is a trickier situation. Some of the articles in Musicals are in both categories. For some titles there are seperate articles for both the movies and the theatre productions. This makes sense because:

If Wikipedia were complete there would be seperate articles for both

The films almost always come after the theatre productions

An argument could be made for making Musical Films a subcategory of Musical Theatre instead of Musicals but it doesn t really matter.

Some categories do not work so neatly. An example which is really bothersome is which has 28 subcategories. It does not make sense to have each director only listed in a subcategory by nationality. The nationality of the director is interesting, but not all that important. Some directors start in one country and move to another. I have no problem with there being categories for directors by nationality, but I think ALL of them should also be in the directors category. The reason for this is:

Having them in both categories makes it easier to find a director if you know his nationality, and MUCH easier if you don t know his nationality.

Which brings me to . Whether a bridge has a toll or not is not all that important, and the attribute does not instruct the reader to notice something important about bridges. If you want to see the articles about the bridges in New York City, why should you have to look in two places

The notion that articles should not be listed in categories and subcategories strikes me as an artifact left over from libraries. The beauty of hypertext is that things can be linked many ways, not just organized on shelves. Why can t things be in multiple categories I d like to see ALL the bridges in New York State listed in . This makes it easy to see a list of all the bridges in a geographical region, and also the subregion.

I made the change for all the bridges in New York City. But within a day they were all reverted. I d like to do it for bridges the rest of the world, film directors and some other categories, but I know I need the consensus of everyone else. I ve read most of the discussion relevant above, and I don t see a good argument for keeping things the way they are. The important thing is to make Wikipedia USEFULL.

:Yes, I quite agree. I made a similar point when 02:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, the Ohio Turnpike is really only relevant if you live in northern Ohio, but I see your point. I think the point of putting it in its own subcategory is to make navigation via .) Anyway, with the toll roads, I would just about go as far as saying that there is little point in having individual state subcategories; there aren t that many toll roads. ::For film directors, it is against current policy to put them in both a specific nationality category and the parent and a nationality category and look up the intersection of the two, but at the moment that isn t possible. ::(Note: If you know the name of the director, you re not going to be looking up the article via categories, anyway. Huge categories are not helpful to casual browsers.) :: ( Sarah ) 03:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel that the category/subcategory thing is a problem. I ve been thinking about it for a while, and here s what I decided: The reason for the difficulty with is fundamentally flawed. We shouldn t have subcats for randomly chosen attributes , as Samuel put it. Instead, have

as a subcat

with country subcats

and other random things like

with a subcat for each, say, centimeter

with left and right subcats

etc. Then we need a software feature that allows a page to represent the intersection of some categories. So, for example, if I decide I want to see all left-handed Hungarian film directors, I can just request the intersection of , as now.

Under this scheme, it would be possible to categorize a person with all their attributes (height, handedness, occupation, etc.) without having to worry about explicitly making intersection categories. The category organization would become flatter, with many current subcats replaced by the new software feature.

I think this proposal would neatly solve the problem that Samuel described above. 04:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another example: the proposed intersection feature would allow you to find people who were born in 1850 and died in 1950 as the intersection of 04:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

: That s quite a good idea. I wonder if it s feasible performance-wise. The other problem I forsee is there s no obvious user interface. –  04:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

:: Thank you :). I haven t really thought about how the user interface would work yet. You would definitely want to be able to link to the intersection of two categories. One possibility: you could, for example, simply make a page with the content ::: #intersection :: 04:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:: I don t think performance should be an issue. Getting the intersection of three categories is simply a matter of getting the members of the three categories, and seeing which articles are in all three. 05:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the whole category/subcategory criterion as it is now formulated is seriously flawed. From previous discussions, I have concluded that the rational for the no listing in both a category and also in a sub/super category rule goes something like this. We want to impose order in our data base system. If we don t the resulting chaos will make the system unworkable. But this is nothing more than fear mongering based on faulty reasoning and a psychological predisposition for structure. Infact, abandoning the not in adjacent categories rule will make the system more user friendly. The criterion we use in deciding what categories articles should be placed in should be user driven. We should ask ourself in which categories the user would expect to see an article listed. We cannot forget that the purpose of the category system is to make it easy for users to find articles, not to create an elegant database free from duplications or overlaps. By abandoning such rules of structure we will create a database that matches the real world and the expectations of real people. Rather than forcing reality to fit into our preconceived notion of what an ideal database structure looks like by using such rules, we should let reality shape the structure of the database. Some specific examples will illustrate. I started to append category tags to the business articles. Of the 1600 business articles about 700 would go in the business category and between 300 - 100 in each of the 20 main subcategories. Obviously there was overlap. This is beceause an article like income statement, for example, while it is primarily an accounting and finance term, is also a general business term. It is used by marketers and other business people as part of their discipline, not in an accounting context. It is a general business term applicable to all of business and as such belongs both in the accounting category and the business category. Since I started working on the Business category, most of the edits have been reversed, by those claiming that an article cannot be in both a category and a subcategory. I am certaining not going to waste any more time working on such a dysfunctional system. The no listing in both a category and also in a sub/super category rule is not the only structural criterion that plagues the category system. There is also the Too much overlap rule . The International trade category is currently listed for deletion and the reason given is that there is too much overlap with the International economics category. Well, news flash . . . in the real world there is conciderable overlap between the two subjects. There is also the categories must be structured only along one dimension rule . I discovered this one in regards to the busiess law category that someone wanted to deleate. The rational given is that the other law subcategories are structured on theortical grounds rather than practical ones. On this argument, practicle subtopics like business law, maritine law, and real estate law should not have their own categories because it would be out of step with the system of legal subcategories based on legal theory. I say stamp out all of these structural criteria and let there be only one criteria, a user driven one. (If, for some reason, you want to hear more, the section Inconsistant criteria earlier on this page has more of my rantings on this topic) 17:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I completely agree with 17:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So can you provide examples of articles that, in your opinion, would belong in a category but not in its supercategory -- 18:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

:There are many examples of articles that are specific in nature and therefore only belong in a subcategory. There are also many examples of articles that are general in nature and therefore only belong in a supercategory. But this is irrelevant. The question is whether there are articles that are both general and specific, and therefore belong in both a category and a subcategy. The answer is yes. Income statement mentioned above is an example. There are many more. Take the focus group article. In a business context, a focus group is primarily a marketing term and belongs in the marketing category. However, the focus group technique is used in virtualy all of business. It belongs in the business category as well. The real world tells us to put the article in both tha marketing and business category. Wikirules tell us to decide which one to put it in because we are not allowed to put it in both. 18:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I too would love to have a properly normalized database structure for categorizing wikipedia, but the current software simply isn t meant for that. For that we would need something like . But that just raises additional questions (what when categories overlap how to produce a good UI for that would we need to invent or implement a query language But categorization also has another important function, that of providing a table of contents, and that is completely achievable with the current system. The user should find articles easily through categories, without having to go deeper than necessary. Ideally, a category should include all articles that fall into it. If there are too many theoretical members of a category (as is usually true for supercategories), it should list the most notable and representative members. Imagine a two-frame UI where you can browse categories on the left and view articles on the right and you may see what I mean.

Here are several examples (some with non-existent categories):

should be in all of them.

should be in both.

should be in both.

19:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This looks to me like a recipe for diverting massive effort from writing, or even usefully categorizing, articles into endless disputes about how broad is the importance of a particular article (or its subject). I can imagine bunches of people trying to promote (or demote) the importance of particular colleges and universities, moderately sized towns, people from particular countries. -- 19:54, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

: I definitely agree. I can see someone going through and putting every minor war into , then someone have to go back and revert every article and explain things. With a community project like this, it s much easier to have black-and-white rules rather than gray rules. Importance is so subjective, it d be very difficult for something like this to converge, much more so than a regular article. –  20:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

:: If you look over this page you can t help but notice that the CURRENT situation is diverting massive effort from writing, or even usefully categorizing, articles into endless disputes about how broad is the importance of a particular article (or its subject). With the current rules most of the categories make sense, but some of them don t. I think the important rule should be Categories should be organized to make it easy to browse through related articles . This rule can be applied to every category. In some categories the no sub/super category duplication rule will make the categorys more useful. But sometimes it will make sense to break the rule. Take the example of bridges. There is a hierachy under 04:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lots of good reasons to change the rules. I was skeptical about the value of categories when they first appeared. But I have found them to be a great way to BROWSE through wikipedia. If I find an interesting page, I check the categories to find other interesting related pages. This is one reason why I am frustrated with the current system. When I want to browse through the articles on film directors, I don t want to have to look at 28 different categories! Likewise, If I m looking to see what articles might be missing about film directors, how will I know if something is missing if I have to browse through numerous categories. One comment was that the directors category would be much too long if all the film directors were in it. To this I say, that it is easier to browse through 2 or 3 lists broken alphabetically, than combine 28 lists in my head. With the current system, if I want to browse through just French film directors, I can. But, if I want to browse through ALL the directors, I can t. Why not both

There is also a bigger philosophical issue here. By having the current rules, it forces people into making categories based on a single world view of what is important, and how things should be organized. That world view comes from the first people who set up the categories, and then everyone else is forced to accept that world view or have their work reverted. This is what happened to me when I found 20:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:The current system does allow multiple world views. If instead of dividing New York s bridges based on toll/non-toll you want to divide them based on whether they ve got rail roads on them or not, create two new subcategories for Bridges of New York City called Rail bridges of New York City and Rail-free bridges of New York City and go nuts categorizing the various bridges into them. The toll categories will still exist, and now the rail categories will too. Articles can belong to both of them. 08:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::But look at my concrete example about 03:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But this is nothing more than fear mongering based on faulty reasoning and a psychological predisposition for structure. This was said about by . Just to figure out what subcategories there are you have to search through every page of the category. (Actually, there aren t any subcategories in that particular case.) This is not helpful to the casual browser. When I look for articles about film directors, I don t want to have to flip through 20 different pages of unorganized articles any more than someone else wants to look at 20 subcategories.

There are categories that contain thousands of articles. These categories are not particularly useful to anyone at the moment because they are so enormous that you can t reasonably page through them.

The current software does not permit us to view the intersection fo two categories. This has been proposed numerous times and would be a great idea, but we can t always function under the assumption that a feature might exist in the future. We can t pull up all members of the film directors category who are also in the American people category , so American film directors is a useful distinction to make. Get some developers to look at the feasibility of this (and to agree to work on this) before trying to use the current system to do something it can t do. - ( Sarah ) 23:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:The fear mongering continues with talk about enormous categories . If categories get too large subcategories should be created and some of the articles placed in the new subcategory. Please don t try to use the enormous category argument to try to convince us that those article that belong in both a category and a subcategory must be forced into one or the other. It dosn t wash. 00:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Probably you didn t intend to do so, but I would appreciate it if you didn t question my motives. (But seriously, why would anyone be afraid of enormous categories I don t imagine anyone has ever had a nightmare about being stuck in a huge category, or being chased by a monster category...I ll let you know if I have one tonight.) I m trying to think practically here. ::I don t see the difference between what you propose and the current system. ( Sarah ) 04:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::The difference is that in the current system, if you put an article in both a category and a subcategory someone will delete it from one of them because we are not allowed to have an article on two adjacent levels. I have had scores of edits reversed for this reason. As for your question why would anybody be afraid of enormous categories , the answer according to contributors earlier on this page, is that they make the category system difficult to use. The people that use this arguement want us to believe that allowing an article in two adjacent levels will somehow make the system unworkable. 03:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As people describe their vision of category intersections , I think they really mean they would like a keyword type of system rather than the bucket category system like we have now. I did a lot of categorizing after I started here, but eventually gave it up because it felt like I was in quicksand. The more I worked with the current category system, the more I came to dislike it.

In a keyword system, a list of keys could be assigned to an article, and each category would also be assigned a set of keys. For example, back to the film directors, an article could be assigned the keys film director and from Germany (as well as any number of other keys). When the category 04:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that a lot of this is less about categorizing than about viewing the categorized information. People could get what they needed if there were an easier way to show a few layers of the category hierarchy at once. -- 07:02, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) :I suspect that a keyword search would be just as problematic as the current search, which is almost always disabled. (Although perhaps not quite as bad. There wouldn t be as much text to search, but there would be just as many articles. I don t know how the search is implemented.) - ( Sarah ) 04:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has several categories in which articles are entered in both Supercategories and Subcategories. This happens when an article is entered into the bottom level of two category hierarchies and one hierarchy happens to be a subset of the other (like Bridges and Toll-bridges which I talked about before). For example, 07:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Does that really make much sense, Samuel I think that if Nicholson is in a subset of ! :In my mind, the logical way to rephrase your rule would be: Articles can belong to several categories when they are at the bottom of two hierarchies and one hierarchy is not a subset of the other. : -- 09:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, Verdlanco, it really makes alot of sense! People can make this decision based on what makes a category useful, and it is not useful to remove things from categories just because there happens to be another hierarchy that has a smaller subset of articles. Sometimes it would be a really, really bad thing to do. For example, I just came across 09:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:No, I just feel that if an article fits equally well in a category and its sub-category, that is a sign that it was a bad idea to create that sub-category. (And that s double true for your apartheid analogy.) Therefore, I think the rule is good the way it is, and that avoiding duplicate category entries will eliminate more dilemmas than it causes. But that s just my opinion. : -- 19:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is copied from my talk page (with Rick Block s permission): :::: 08:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::...I m getting to the point where I ve pretty much had it with categories (too many folks unwilling to budge from absolute positions, particularly the notion that category membership must mean is a ). I posted some comments last December (see 02:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Proposed Guidelines ==

I have run into this issue a few times in my very short stay (so far) on Wikipedia and did some thinking about the situations where I think an article should be in a category as well as a sub-category. I came up with two guidelines and wanted to see if other people had similar ideas or if I am smoking crack. This seems to be the best place to get opinions on this issue so here I go ....

=== Qualitative vs. Quantitative ===

If the articles in a category are fundamentally the same type of article (i.e. about people or places etc.) and the difference between the category and sub-category is fundamentally qualitative then the article should only be listed in the sub-category. This is the example from the main page: Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her. To say it a different way Queen Elizabeth would not be put Queens of England just because she was a better/more famous/more notable person. The other side of this is when the difference is primarily quantitative. The example than I ran into that is good here, is the category Chess grandmasters and Chess players . A person DOES go from being just a chess player to being a Chess grandmaster by being a better chess player, so the difference is primarily quantitative and the article should be listed in both. A good way to tell if you are in this situation is: If the sub-category were deleted and all its contents imported into the super-category would it significantly reduce the usefulness of the super category This brings me to the second guideline.

=== Navigational utility ===

In the above example the category Chess players could be further subdivided so that there were categories for Chess International Master , Chess Masters etc. so that no people articles are in the super-category. In that case you would not want to include individual articles in both categories. But would this be useful Categories are fundamentally a navigation aid. What is going to help the user looking for an article by navigating the Category tree (graph) find what they need Does a specific categorization make it harder or easier for them to find what they are looking for My example here is also from chess. Category Chess is currently in the following three categories: Chaturanga game family , Mental-skill games , and Board games . Based on the rule of not listing an article in a category and a sub-category Mental-skill games and Board games should be removed since Chaturanga game family is already in both of these categories. But, how many end users have ever heard of the Chaturanga family of games I play chess a lot and I did not know this bit of information. This is the kind of Category that is useful moving up the category hierarchy rather than down. Chess should be in Board games and Mental skill games because that is where users will look for it when trying to find it. Equally it should be in Chaturanga game family because users might learn that and then after they are done reading about chess use the link into the category to learn more about related games.

Summary: I hope this is the right place for this, and as a clueless newbie I hope I am not re-hashing something that has already been discussed into the ground and resolved. If so and there has been some succinct treatment of the issue somewhere a pointer on my talk page would be awesome, even though I put Proposed guidelines above I am really just asking since I keep running into this and I am a but of a metadata freak. 02:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:To anyone who has read this thread to this point, please read the other related entries on this page. Also, note that there is a proposed comromise to this issue further below. -- 00:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

= Category pages should sort by namespace first =

Category pages should sort by namespace first. It would make things a lot easier. For example, a lot of templates have categories attached to them. Those templates shouldn t be under T , but there s no way to pipe them without screwing up the articles that use the template. Main namespace should be listed as-is, then after that section there should be other alphebetized sections for other namespaces. –  19:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

:Actually I think it would be better if we had a method of making the templates disappear from the categories since the template itself really isn t supposed to be grouped with the articles in the category. — 04:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

= Categories and/or Classification =

The controversy and disagreement about categories is due to TWO DIFFERENT understandings about what a category is. I d like to propose that what we are talking about is really CATEGORIES and CLASSIFICATION. The current system and rules for CATEGORIES is trying to set up a system of CLASSIFICATION; a logic that puts every article in a well organized hierarchy. CATEGORIZATION, on the other hand, tries to associate related articles in many different ways.

So perhaps what is needed is BOTH. So I propose:

# Get rid of the constraints on CATEGORIES discussed in sections above. # ADD A NEW FEATURE, that of CLASSIFICATION, which puts each article in just one location in a hierarchy.

How it might work:

You would type something like Class:Bridges in New York City (in brackets), and just like categories, it would end up in the appropriate classification page. Either the system would only allow one classification or editors would limit the classifications. Perhaps the classification would appear at the Top of an article (in small print under the article title). This might become an option that could be turned off.

This might make everyone happy. 20:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I don t think this helps. I could see plenty of room for argument over which single classification is the best to use and whether the classification is too specific or too broad. — 04:38, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, there would be arguments about classification, which is what we often have now with categories (constrained as they are). The people who WANT to argue about classifications could. The rest of us would not have to bother and just add categories. 07:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=Arithmetics=

Are here categories Arithmetics that could answer to queries: #Intersection - what belongs to two categories. #Substraction - what belong to one category, but not other 20:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= Related category proposal =

I think I ve got it...

The problem is that we are doing multiple categorization and then putting subcategories in whatever category is related. This is a good thing, but it creates problems, like the no super/sub entry duplication rule. Take the example of bridges. There is a hierachy under . Putting the toll bridge categories as subcategories of bridges is really just putting a related category and not really a subcategory because that subcategy is already part of a different hierarchy. Because of this, it would make sense for ALL the bridges to be listed in Category:Bridges in New York City, and have some entries duplicated in Category:Toll bridges in New York City. So we really have two different things going on; Subcategories and Related subcategories.

My proposal is to make Subcategories and Related Categories different things. Subcategories could look and work the same as they do now. But perhaps we could add 04:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I have no problem with the idea of adding related categories , possibly as an optional thing (not controlled by software) in the same way as zeal.com does it (eg http://www.zeal.com/category/manage.jhtmlcid=560009). But it s not the same as those bridges. The category 05:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Well, it might be possible that a category could reasonably fit in as subcategories in two different hierarchies, but no examples come to mind right away. I ll think about that one. But, what is wrong with saying that articles should not be listed more than once in any hierarchy My problem is the unreasonable intersection of the Bridges and Toll Bridges hierarchies that removes all toll bridges from the Bridges hierarchy. Why What is wrong with them being in both places Please give me some concrete reason. I don t understand why this is bothersome to so many people. ::Let me give you a hypothetical example. Let s say there is a category called People named Bob (Perhaps there is one!) I know there are clubs for people named Bob, so it seems legitimate that there be a hierarchy of categories for people named Bob. Perhaps it gets organized geographically. If so, there might be a subcategory called British writers named Bob . Now, if this becomes a subcategory of 07:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::To answer your last question, under the current system the answer is more often than not yes . — 08:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

=Category and Template specificity=

I didn t notice clear guidelines on the project page about how microscopic Cats and Templates should be--anybody know if such guidelines exist or have been discussed Or am I the only person that finds 22:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I suspect that the category and template in question were created specifically to be over-the-top. People are not generally creating such categories and seriously using them. (But if you find that such categories exist, please do nominate them for deletion. We discussion too-specific catgories all the time at .) :Guidelines regarding specificity of categories depend somewhat on the number of articles involved. (A very general subject that we don t write much about obviously does not need specific subcategories. A specific subject that is written about constantly may require more specific subcategories.) I did find this under Category membership and creation : A few categories do only merely subdivide their parent category, but unless the parent category has many potential articles under it, or many potential subdivisions , if you can t think of a second parent category, it might be a better idea to fold your smaller category into the parent (emphasis added). - ( Sarah ) 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= Help requested with =

This category is huge, hundreds and hundreds of subcategories . Because of this, only about 3 letters at a time are shown. It takes quite a bit of time to get to the end of the alphabet. I m wondering how big categories should be handled. The guidelines say to divide things into new subcategories. Since this is a huge category of subcategories , that means adding another layer of hierarchy.

I gave that a try: I created a new subcategory , but it would take forever to move everything into new subcategories. Can this process be automated If so how Is there a better solution

Since the issue of large categories has come up in previous discussions, and seems to be controversial, Is there any way to make a table of contents for a category It seems that this would be really usefull, and would ease people s dislike of large categories. I tried making a TOC by typing , etc... but that didn t work. Is there any way to do this

It seems that any category that is too big to be shown on one page should AUTOMATICALLY have a table of contents. This should be in the software. Has this been discussed

Thanks, 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I just did a quicky (maunual) A,B,C,... index using URLs the software seems to interpret correctly. I agree it would be nicer if there was a wiki reference (perhaps something similar to [:Category:Albums by artist#A]) or if the software did this automatically, but for what you seem to want I think this is an adequate workaround. -- 14:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::I ve played with this a bit to try to get rid of the external link indicator (present with the default skin, but not the classic skin which I usually use), and as far as I can tell there is simply no way. Seems like a link of the form [http:/w/index.phpanything] should NOT be presented as an external link (since it is by definition a link served by the same web server). I suspect a more elegant looking solution for the standard skin will require some sort of software change (sigh). -- 21:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=Category Table of Contents now possible=

Based on Rick Block s work above, I created a template for adding Table of Contents to large categories. To use, type whenever a category is getting too long. To see an example, check out 00:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::This has since been renamed to -- 00:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :Oh, thank you. I was just thinking that someone should do that. (It doesn t help if you are just randomly browsing a category or trying to figure out what subcategories there are, but it sure makes a difference if you have some idea what you re looking for.) - ( Sarah ) 00:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Wow, that s very nice Samuel. 13:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) With which browser does this work It doesn t work on mine (Safari). — 03:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) :I just fixed this (works for my Safari). The previous version worked with IE and Mozilla. -- 05:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Although the downside is the fixed version displays the external link arrow with the standard skin (with Safari, IE, and Mozilla). -- 05:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::This seems to be due to what I d call a bug in mediawiki, i.e. a relative URL reference must start with http: . IE and Mozilla both treat this as a link relative to the current page but Safari treats this as a page on localhost. I haven t looked this up, but I suspect HTML doesn t specify the meaning of http:/relativepath . IMO, mediawiki should treat [/relativepath] (and variants) as legitimate (relative) URLs and not generate external link indicators (regardless of user s skin choice). -- 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::According to 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Catherine! -- 14:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

18:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= Category proposal with examples =

There s been quite a bit of discussion about the way we ve been setting up categories. There are several problems that need to be addressed somehow. But I think most of this stems from three conflicting attributes of categories: # Multiple hierarchies of categories exist and some categories become subcategories in several hierarchies. # Current policy states that articles should not be put in both sub and super categories. # Categories get removed because of too much overlap . If the three of these continue, many categories will become fragmented to the point of being unusable, and in some cases some very unwanted side-effects will be created.

Here s an example of a side effect: .

As I see it, because our system does not distinguish which sub-categories are part of the hierarchy and which are related , whenever categories collide problems like this occur. I think three things could be done to alleviate this problem:

:1) At the top of each category, I propose that we add links that maps out the hierarchies that include the category. I m calling this CLASSIFICATION. This is possible now without any need for a software enhancement. I ve created an example, in right at the top it has:

Classification: : New York City Classification: : Bridges

: This example shows that there are two hierarchies that converge. Putting the classification on the category page makes it very easy to jump to the top of the hierarchy. Notice I did not include Science, Applied science, engineering, etc... in the Bridge hierarchy. I think there is a natural starting and stopping point for each hierarchy. :Showing the classification also helps make it clearer which categories are RELATED categories and which are part of the hierarchy. In the example above: is a related category because it is part of a different hierarchy.

:2) I d propose that the software be changed so that when users are looking at a category page, they could distinguish which sub-categories are part of the hierarchy and which are just related categories. This could be accomplished by making something like to designate the category is a related category. The subcategories would be displayed in two groups: SUB-CATEGORIES and RELATED CATEGORIES. (There might also be a need for Related article entries in categories, but that is another discussion.)

:3) I propose that we change the rules. I would first propose that the no duplication of articles being entered in both super and sub category rule be amended to say ... in the same hierarchy. The reality is that the status quo is constantly broken, and for good reason. Look at the acting categories mentioned above, and also look at , but it is now clearer that they are part of a different hierarchy. :Categories are still evolving. By loosening the rules further, some creative changes are possible. I d like to amend the rule above to say no duplication of articles should be entered in both super and sub categories in the same hierarchy UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON.

One reason, perhaps, why there was a move to make more and more subcategories, and to remove articles from a category whenever they could be found in a subcategory is because only 200 entries can be shown on a category page. Recently, we have found a way to make 08:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :The problems you mention are real, but I don t think the proposed solution is advisable. I believe the developers intend to eventually introduce the ability to list all of the articles in a user defined hierarchy. If someone is interested in all the bridges of New York City they will be able to automatically generate a single alphabetized list. If they are only interested in those without tolls they will also be able to find a list of those. It is far better to wait for this feature to be introduced than it is to manually overhaul the entire categorization system. Especially since once the software is improved these changes would all have to be reversed. - 16:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) ::Can you reference the proposed change, and the discussion around it -- 20:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::: That s what I posted on ) 08:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) ::::Thanks for the references, which I had read. But, Both of these appear to be just proposals, and it doesn t seem certain that they will be implemented. The discussion should be happening here to decide what is needed, how much should be software, and how much done by editing. Perhaps there was discussions in the archives about this. Was there a clear consensus about what should happen I do not get the sense from the discussions on this page that there was a clear consensus. If there was an agreed upon plan for a future upgrade, it should be spelled out clearly on the categorization page. If there wasn t, let s do it now. -- 08:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= categorizing user pages =

I m starting to see a disturbing trend of people categorizing other user s pages, usually in a non-beneficial and sometimes negative way (ex. 18:09, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

= Keying by blank categories =

Should by blank (e.g. by country ) categories be keyed as by blank or just blank Concrete example for ) 02:07, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

:Personally, I prefer 22:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

= Noted drug users: how to categorize =

It would be useful to have a category that tied together people who are notable in large part for their use or advocacy of pyschoactive drugs. People like Timothy Leary, Hunter S. Thompson, Castenada, Huxley etc. Problem is, I m not sure what to call it or where to put it. It could go under 20:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Not everything needs to be a category - this strikes me as something that might be more appropriately dealt with in a list article or an article about the history of popularization of drug use (if that s what you re really getting at). -- 00:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Thanks for the suggestion. I ve create 14:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) :In any event, if you do this via a category, do make sure to write a clear explanatory note in the category page, because no name is going to be crystal clear. So to speak. -- 02:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

=Category=

Could it be done by changing the text of the stub template to 11:39 Mar 1 2005 (UTC) : What is the problem to which this is a proposed solution -- 17:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

= Classification: See =

I ve started classifying categories. Take a look at 10:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Interesting idea, but it won t work so well if people change the categorization of the subcategories. In other words, the Category feature is a bottom-up solution and you seem to be imposing a top-down (not to mention by hand ) approach with your Classification system. The two approaches would seem to be fundamentally at odds with each other. - 01:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: Yes, but it isn t hard to fix. And I wouldn t do this unless the categories looked to be stable. ::There s an advantage to doing it by hand . Some subcategory associations are what I call related sub-categories, meaning not part of the hierarchy. ::Bottom-down and top-up aren t at odds. People want to move in both directions. -- 06:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::As a user, I often start from an article, find a relevant category, navigate up the hierarchy a level or two, then navigate down. -- 23:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

= Categories: A compromise =

The conversation has been quiet for a while. I m wondering if the advent of Category TOC s has changed anyone s view on the Super/Sub category issue

Re-reading all the discussions, I d say that there was no clear consensus as far as I could tell. Can we agree to let things evolve and see what happens I m thinking of the following:

1) Ease up on the no Super/Sub-Category duplication rule. Duplications seem to arise naturally. We should agree to allow duplication when it makes the categories more complete, less confusing or in other ways more useful. I think the rule of thumb could be: :If there aren t subcategories for every member of a category, there can be duplication. Thus, Oscar winners could duplicate film actors, Film musicals could duplicate musicals, Toll bridges could duplicate Bridges, Actors could duplicate African-American actors, etc... This would also hold if the subcategories are more than one level below. So since the entries for Directors by Nationality are two levels below Directors (and many directors are multi-national), there could be duplication.

2) When entries are duplicated, the duplication should be noted. See: for an example of how this could be done.

3) Only bend the rule with restraint. We re not agreeing to include articles at more than two levels of a hierarchy. There should be a good reason for any duplication. Duplications should only happen if they make categories easier to use. Exceptions of a type that we haven t discussed should be brought up at this page for discussion.

4) A policy on exceptions should be added to the category page if we can reach a consensus.

Can we live with this as a compromise ::-- 11:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I won t oppose it, but I will point out that looser rules are harder to enforce. Can we at least limit firmly how many levels in a hierarchy may be used for a given page Otherwise, I can imagine the same item being put (for example) at six different levels of a hierarchy. -- 18:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC) :: I suggested two levels (see #3 above). I think this could be all spelled out so that pandemonium doesn t become the norm. Do you think #1-#3 above (with # 3 stating examples which have been discussed) is enough of a guideline for exceptions, or is more needed -- 19:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Ah, hadn t noticed that. I d be open to this as long as a reasonably large group is willing to commit to monitoring this: it s a more difficult criterion to monitor than the current one. -- 20:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

= nominations for trivial deletion/moves =

I ve been trying to find where I should list a mispelled category I created. I may be going blind because, despite 14:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I changed it to Nominate categories that violate policies here . 14:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Thanks for the clarification. - 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

= Namespace and VFD =

This paragraph, headed Wikipedia namespace: :Categories relating to the would be placed on the talk page as they are relevant to editors, not an aid to browsing in the way ordinary categories are. Please use on the Category description page to show that it is a Wikipedia-namespace category. is in conflict with the instructions on the VFD page, which says the should be placed on the article page. — 17:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: Yes, there are several exceptions to that: VfD, copyvio, notenglish, and the various stub and cleanup tags. Note, however, that these are all done via templates, not via categories put directly into the text. We probably should clarify that here. -- 22:55, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

: These tags should go on the article page, not stashed away in the Talk page, where they would not be noticed as quickly: whether an article is up for consideration to be deleted soon should be of great interest to both readers and editors. Plus appearing on the article will provide more attention to the Vfd and therefore better allow for input in the Vfd process. -- 21:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

::That s your 17:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

:::OK, let s start. Why do you feel that VfD notices should be hidden away on talk pages instead of at the top of the article 18:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

= Renaming redirected articles on category pages - can it be done =

Problem: . It now shows up on Brands of beer as Ita , which is wrong.

Is there a way to force the Brands of beer category to display the name of the article as St. Ides -- 20:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Seems like the real problem here is having an article about a brand of beer on a page that is not named for that beer. Why talk about a beer named St. Ides on a page called Ita What about having 03:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

:I went ahead and moved 14:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a similar issue with several operas. For example, because of naming conventions, 23:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

:I m pretty sure the best we can do at this point is to use a 02:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

:: That is very clever! Thank-you so much for the info. I read the policy statement, but it doesn t address that particular use of soft directs. Will I be violating any rules if I do this -- 03:59, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

:::Seems to me this is perfectly legal, so 04:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

= Some really bad sub-categorization =

I don t do a lot of categorization work myself, but the recent subcategorization of 00:49, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

= Another subcategorization worry =

So, I am usually watching . Now, I open the category today and see that it has been split into a ton of subcategories. Worries are:

exists

For instance, being at two.

Also, .

and its subcats. More subcats than articles.

I must ask, is this really so neccessary Why the extremely detailed subcategorization Worst of all is that we can t get a good overview of articles about a topic then. No longer I can go to 21:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

:The Latvian subcategorization sounds like overkill, but a category does not to have many members to be useful. Even a one-member category can be useful if it links in properly. For example, is useful because it is a subcategory of both Lakes of Europe and Geography of Latvia . It sits at the intersection of those two subjects, and people coming from both of those subjects will be interested in that category.

:- 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

::Agreed on that, but my real complaint is the inability to oversee the category as a whole. In that sense, every subcat makes it harder, because I d have to click on each of them. I maintain that we still need a feauture to enable one to see all members of a category and all its subcategories. Is there perhaps a place on Meta that such software feauture additions should be requested 22:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

:::I agree--such a feature would be very useful. Perhaps even treat subcats as a graphical file browser does, with expandable tree branches. Several people have proposed a similar feature already.

:::As for discussion of new features, it WOULD be nice to have a central page on meta. However, a couple of the developers decided to destroy the central feature discussion page: all the time. Not very considerate to other people, is it

:::Since the meta discussion page is currently destroyed (until a group of get motivated enough to resurrect it--or make another one), you can discuss new features at the Village pump (technical) for the time being. And Bugzilla can be used for officially making a new feature request, if you feel like doing that.

:::- 05:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

= LGBT people sub-categories =

Recently, after a decision was made on CfD to delete all the LGBT people subcategories and move the entries into 09:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :Hear, hear. Me too. With VfD, at least your watchlist informs you of a pending deletion. With CfD, you have no chance of catching it unless you spend time on CfD. A lot of us spend very little to no time on any Wikipedia:* pages. 17:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As the result of the outcry of several individuals, a vote to reinstate the categories is currently in process at .

There should be some discussion to formalize the process for getting categories reinstated. I also get the impression that a supermajority of as little as 60% can vote to delete categories. I believe this is a bad policy. I think one person should be able to block consensus if they feel strongly enough about their position. Blocking consensus is not something that people should take lightly, and it is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime occasion. People that block frequently and frivolously will loose their credibility. What I am describing is a normal part of formal consensus decision making. Perhaps, considering the number of people involved in Wikipedia, we should require 5 people to block consensus. This would mean that there are 5 people that are willing to put their reputation on the line because of a position they feel strongly about. BTW, in my years of experience in groups that operated using formal consensus decision making I have yet to experience someone blocking consensus more than temporarily. Usually, an intelligent compromise is quickly reached. -- 23:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I shall also point editors at 23:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that part of the genesis for the conflict with LGBT subcategories is because of the problems we have been discussing above about that the duplication of articles in subcategories and supercategories. I believe this problem comes about because there are multiple category hierarchies in Wikipedia and sometimes the subcategories of one hierarchy can also be thought of as subcategories of another. In this case, those of us working on LGBT categories were not attempting to ghettoize LGBT people, but just trying to create categories we find useful. Others think this makes the supercategories LESS useful. I don t believe the solution is to remove subcategories. The solution is to make clear guidelines for when there can be duplication. Please see 05:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

= Destroyed (historical) Buildings =

I apologize if this is not the right place to ask it, but I have been looking for a category on buildings or structures that are no longer extant. I have looked under 17:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :Looking under 17:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :* I ll rework the hierarchy appropriately. -- 20:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC) ::*I appreciate it, but I think the issue is more that I don t think the proper category exists. I should probably create one, but the work it would take to find and categorize every building or structure that no longer exists would be insane. Well, I could always get it started... thanks for the help. 21:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::**Agreed, it did not, and there was nowhere obvious to put it. See 21:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC) ::*Ah, somehow I did not see/find that category ( 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::** You didn t find it previously because I added in response to your questions! If you encounter poorly structured hierarchies of categories, don t hesitate to interpose categories that make the necessary abstractions, like I just did. -- 04:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

= Category-Defining Articles =

Currently:

:An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example . Note: An exception would be an article that defines a category, and so is itself a parent article of subtopics as well as one in a series of like topics - for instance,

I propose this exception be removed, and the note text replaced:

:An article that defines a category should usually be in that category only.

This seems to follow actual practice. — 00:15, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

:Um, no. The note is followed by a few examples. This is not that unusual. 02:53, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

::But preferable, surely It s simpler. — 07:25, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

:::Not necessarily. For example, would somewhat disingenuously contain the state categories rather than the state articles. It would make navigating such a hierarchy considerably more difficult. 11:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

::::Right now lists them all twice, once as sub-category and once as article, which strikes me as cluttered and confusing. Surely it s simpler and no more difficult to navigate to have them listed just as sub-category

::::Sure, you can navigate more directly if you put articles into all the supercategories in their hierarchy. I mean, one could list 23:16, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

::::So, um, given that, do you have any objection to removing the exception — 23:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the exception. In fact, the exception should be used more often. How useful is it for 04:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that an article doesn t technically belong in the article-defining category - it is their by courtesy, to make things a bit easier. But Microsoft isn t a kind of thing done by Microsoft, so technically, it shouldn t really be part of the Microsoft category. I have no problem with having it there, since it makes it easier, but the idea that because it is included there, by courtesy, it should not be included in any other categories is stupid. 05:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Currently .

:Clearly it s a bad idea to put an article directly in all the categories that apply to it. 09:22, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

If you include and get all articles, not all except a few that have their own category. -- User:Docu

:This only happens to work for those categories that have no other subcategories. If someone decides to create 06:48, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

::Which is why 01:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::No, 02:07, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

::::But it s not worth breaking down car companies by state, because all the major American car companies (except the marginal case of 04:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::It sounds from this that 04:49, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

::::::No, it wouldn t be a very useful category because there would not be comparable categories for the other states. 00:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::That s not necessary to make the category useful. A similar example would be 01:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

::::::::No, that s really not comparable. There are many subcats under that category. But name a single other state that would have enough car companies to warrant a subcategory of its own. It s not that there would have to be a similar category for EVERY state, but it would be silly to create such a subcategory for a single state. 01:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I don t see why, if enough articles can be moved into it. This sort of thing happens in the category tree all the time. For a long time there was only one subcategory (Jacobites, I think) of , until enough articles were added to the category that others could be identified.

:::::::::Another example would be 03:09, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley in this argument. Unfortunately, he picked a bad example: US car companies are pretty well established and the need for a major categories adjustment is unlikely for the next decade or so. But there are plenty of categories that are moving quickly. In designing this, we should value the principle of not duplicating information that needs to be maintained. If an article belongs in the same categories as its category page then this should only be stored and changed in one place. The way it is displayed can easily be changed; it should not dictate the way we edit WikiPedia. I d be all for a change request like this: If an article contains an entry 02:08, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

:I have found an easy solution to this. Do not put the category-defining article in the category, but do manually put it on the category page. It has the convienence of being close at hand, and the purity of not being in the category. See 04:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

::But it should be in the category, surely It s a bit odd to be reading the article and not see the category as a category... — 06:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) :::No, it shouldn t, since it doesn t fit into the category s definition. You could place a link to the category in the article s See also section. 10:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Because not all German opera is German-language opera — 00:44, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

I think I have a solution: follow the guideline for years: The category-defining article is listed first with a *, eg 05:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I do that anyway, except I use a space instead (as it doesn t generate a letter heading in the category but does put the article first). — 10:50, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) ::Ah, thanks, that s much better. 13:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with category-defining articles being in that category, even though it doesn t strictly belong. What I do have a problem with is then taking the category-defining article out of all the categories it does strictly belong in, because it is in its category-defining article. This is why there is already an exception for this. And this is why we should maintain that exception, and, furthermore, enforce it by putting category-defining articles into all the categories they should be in. 19:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Surely , even though a goat is all these things. It doesn t belong in them, indeed, for the same reason, because it defeats the purpose of subcategories.

:What I m failing to see is any justification for making a special exception. Sure, a goat is a caprid, one might argue, so why not put it in that category But by that argument, we should put it in all the other categories in its hierarchy. 04:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

::It is a special exception because that means that every time somebody decides to create a category which has an article, that article has to stop being in all the categories it was in before. This is stupid, and it makes categories less useful. Going from the category view, I suppose it makes sense, but it s stupid to do it from the article view. If I m looking at 22:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::But it s the same thing for any subcategory. Supposing the provinces are organised into five regions, and there are categories for two of the regions. If you are looking for Fatbut Province in the Eastern region, you must first check whether or not , which clearly defeats the point of subcategorisation.

:::It s the same in each case, and therefore can t justify a special exception. You can make things very slightly easier to find by putting articles in their entire ancestry of categories. But the end result is messy and hard to maintain. — 02:00, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

::::You keep saying a special exception can t be justified, but I think it can. For one thing, it s a very limited exception - it is very clear when exactly it applies. It is also at the very extreme of the subcategory issue. While the creation of subcategories can often be unsatisfactory (especially when it s badly done), it can certainly be agreed that excluding larger categories can become excessive. This provides a bright line test for it. I certainly don t see any consensus here for removing the exception. 05:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::I agree with 13:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::::The problem may fix itself over time. And over time could be years. At any rate, here s my basic point: the rule saying that articles shouldn t be in a category which is the parent category of another category they re in is basically a good one. But as categories get to be more and more detailed, this rule begins to have disadvantages as well as advantages. At the point where you get to the article having its own category, it makes sense to draw a bright line in the sand and say In this case, at least, the rule becomes absurd to follow. Of course it s true that there are other instances where it is nearly as absurd - especially when we have stupid categories like 15:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I don t see why the rule is absurd to follow just because an article has its own category. There s nothing absurd about an article existing only in its own category. The alternative complicates maintainability: you have to figure out exactly which supercategories of the category should also appear as categories of the article, and they inevitably become wrong as categorisation is updated. I quite frequently come across articles in their own category that are also in categories that are way up in the ancestry. Of course I simply delete these.

:::::::If you wish to bow out that s up to you. I will happily continue to respond to any points made. — 06:30, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Sorry I m joining this conversation late. I ve had to take a break from categorization for a while to give myself some distance and lower my level of wikistress. Categorization is giving everyone headaches. It seems to be one of the main sources of conflict at Wikipedia. This is because we don t have a common vision about what categories are. Many of the people who get involved in adding categories to articles see them as a classification system. Many others see them as a navigation system. Some use them to browse through articles, other use them to see what articles are missing.

Perhaps we could take a step back and talk about WHY we have categories. I think we can all agree that categories make it easy to find articles. However most of the discussions on this page seem to be about where things belong . I d like to make the decisions about where things belong based on where it would be the most help for people looking for articles and browsing through categories.

If we do not put a category defining article in the category of the same name, that means that the category will not appear with the article. If I ve just read the article on is probably the first one I should read. Certainly the article can be added to the category manually at the top, and the category could be added to the article manually also, but this seems like alot of extra work just to keep things pure. Why not just put them in both categories It s easy and it makes it easier for people to navigate.

As discussed in many places further up this page, there are many good reasons for having articles duplicated in subcategories and supercategories. This is one of them.

Other reasons for having duplicates are; when there are not subcategories for every member of the category; when people want to browse through a complete list of something (check out the recent discussion at 07:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= category: x by name =

A newcomer interested in opera has just created the category and added it last night to all our opera articles (~200). This seems a misuse of the category scheme since it isn t a genuine taxonomic classification. Taken to the logical extreme, we would then have a categories like people by name or books by title . Does this serve a purpose Is there any precedent or solid arguments in favor of such a scheme It would be helpful if commentary could be directed towards , where a discussion about this is taking place. -- 10:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Country musicians AND country singers =

I was starting to categorize country music related articles and noticed there were two similar categories: 23:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

= Cycles =

There should never be cycles in the categories, should there — 07:55, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

I ll change it to say that cycles should be avoided unless someone can come up with a good reason otherwise. — 23:06, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC) :I m not sure I quite understand. Are you objecting to usually in usually should be avoided -- ) 00:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

::Yes. I m objecting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Categorization&diff=0&oldid=14912190 this edit]. — 00:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) :::I made that edit. Cycles are necessary for duplicate / alternative categories. See 01:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I don t see how the discussion above related to cycles Do you have any examples of existing category cycles I think that duplicate categories should be merged, and alternative categories should refer to each other in body text only, unless one is clearly a subcategory of the other. — 02:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

::::I agree with Ashley Y. The linked discussion was about categorization of articles , not categorization of categories . Also, it s never sufficient to add the qualifier usually to a policy: you need to specify when the exception applies, or at least give illustrative examples. It can t simply be relegated to the Talk page. 03:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::OK, I ve reverted the change. There don t seem to be any existing cycles or good reasons why they should exist. — 23:32, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

:::The categories are full of cycles. This cannot be avoided nor should it. Keep in mind that all categories come from the fundamental category. As the cat-tree develops branchs on a topic like Canada or music, a cycle will naturally be created by a topic like Canadian music . Why only let that cat be in one branch. Cycles are good and reflect reality. -- 23:47, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

::::It doesn t sound like we re all using the same terminology. I believe ) 01:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

:: Right now wikipedia is full of both kinds. I picked at random and found this: ::Apes->Primates->Mammals->Animals->Tree of life-> ::Biology->Science->Human societies->Humans->Apes. I don t think you will ever come close to elmating these cycles. Why try -- 04:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

:::This is a bizarre attitude for a Wikipedian to take. I don t think you will ever come close to eliminating factual errors (for instance) from Wikipedia, so why try In the mean time, I shall go and be bold and fix this cycle. — 09:25, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

::::Or at least I would, if 09:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

:::::It was silently protected a while back, and not done properly according to protection policy. I ve unprotected it. 07:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Please eliminate factual errors. I didn t mean to say don t do that. What I meant was that the writers here don t think in lines of sub-categories. They think in circles. The human brain is organized like a network. When an interesting connection between two ideas is found, it doesn t stop and deny the connection because it creates a cyclic graph. Neither should we. Here s another: sound->acotsitcs->sound. -- 10:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

::::But putting a category in another category doesn t just mean see also . It suggests that one thing is a subset of another. — 05:17, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

:::::: Who said it means see also I don t think it contributes to a rational discussion if you (1) repeatedly put words into people s mouths; (2) threaten to fix things while they re under discussion and (3) distort factual statements, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Categorization&diff=0&oldid=15000091 categories form directed graph --> directed acyclic graph]. — 21:27, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

:::::The problem is that this view of what categories mean is not universally shared, and it s certainly not enforced by the software. Confusion about what categories mean leads to many arguments, for example whether list of x should be in ) 05:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Your alternative of parent categories as mere wikilinks is not represented in Wikipedia, as the categories are clearly close to a directed acyclic graph. This suggests more than mere linking. — 06:43, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

:::::I agree that categories are usually used as subsets (the parent terminology used on ) 13:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::::: Well said! We should focus on what Wikipedia actually needs, not on what the word category means to some of us. — 21:27, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

::::::Sure, there might be a good reason for a cycle, but no-one seems to have come up with one (regardless of whether such a cycle actually exists). I don t think it s appropriate to suggest merely usually without outlining guidelines for deviation.

::::::I propose that my edit stand unless and until a good reason can be shown here for a cycle to exist, and for the guideline not to suggest that cycles are acceptable without explaining when and why. — 01:30, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) *The only guideline about cycles is the one we are discussing here. I agree with 18:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Cycles should not exist because there s no good reason for them. If you can come up with a good reason for them, then I ll change my position. — 02:09, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

::I don t think anyone who adds a subcategory can reasonably be expected to check thoroughly whether this creates a cycle somewhere in the scheme: it could be complicated (maybe that s the reason the software doesn t do it automatically). However, I think it is a useful guideline to say if you come across a cycle in the categorization, it s probably a sign that something has been miscategorized and could benefit from reclassification . 02:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::That s more or less my attitude. — 02:53, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC) ::::I m okay with that. The only problem is, if someone does find a need for cycles, they may look at the policy and think they re not allowed ... by making it policy, we re saying that there is no good reason for them and there never will be... I just don t see any particular harm in having them (apart from the issue of miscategorization). 08:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= X and study of X categories =

When you have two categories of the form X and study of X , what should the relationship be Should one be a subcategory of the other Should they be merged And which articles should be in which Examples:

For the first two, the study is a subcat of the subject. In the second two, the subject is a subcat of the study. Which is better And if it shouldn t necessarily be consistent, how should one decide in each case And how should one decide whether an article belongs in each — 02:51, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Good question! Another example:

)

03:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC) *I d assume the study of X category should be a subcategory of X . They shouldn t generally be merged - study of X is about the study itself, while X is about X itself... eg. 06:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) **That s not always the case, though. For example, 12:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) **Good example. 12:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::How do we decide in each case — 07:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) :::We d have to look at whether the members of the subcategory fit in the larger category. For example, 15:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

::::OK, that s fair enough, let s make parasites a subcat of parasitology as it was before I changed it. But how can we generalise this Should we say all articles in A are of interest to B, therefore A should be a subcat of B Should we make music a subcat of musicology After all, music generally is of interest to musicology, isn t it — 01:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) :::::True, but I don t think that the article on the 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

::::::Are you saying that music by the Spice Girls is somehow excluded from the general purview of musicology — 04:33, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

::::::No, I m saying that the article is not particularly musicological--it s about the group, not about the artistic merits of their work--and musicologists don t bother to study it (see the criticism section of the 12:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note also that 10:46, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I ve been busily making the science the subcat of the subject, in the process treading on Dave s parasitological toe (above). But what if we had the subject the subcat of the science generally Would it be acceptable for music to be a subcat of musicology — 10:55, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

:I m not entirely sure what you mean. Putting parasitology (or mammalogy, or herpetology, etc.) as a subject within science makes sense to me, though maybe it would fit better as a category of biology, which should itself be a category of science. I m not sure how this relates to

::There seem to be two sets of categories, the science or study of articles and the subject articles. I m not so much worried about the organisation of each, it s the connection between the two that I m interested in. — 01:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:That s not good enough, though: to come to a consensus in any particular case we need to know what the rules are. Otherwise we end up in disputes where each person appeals to their own judgement. — 21:53, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

:: I agree: Not having a principle leads to numerous unnecessary circles, such as in 08:07, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

It seems to me that, as a rule, study of X should be a subcategory of X . That doesn t mean they can t also fall within . For example, I d expect something like:

Science->Biology->Zoology Science->Biology->Botany Science->Biology->Parasitology Living things->Biology Living things->Animals->Zoology Living things->Plants->Botany Living things->Parasites->Parasitology

-- 22:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think some confusion arises because there are two kinds of X categories - one kind is everything related to X , and subtypes of X . The first is exemplified by 23:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Hear, hear. -- June 29, 2005 02:02 (UTC) **That makes a lot of sense, actually. I hadn t thought of it that way. How do we implement it June 29, 2005 03:01 (UTC) ***I think it would have to be case-by-case. There s no intrinsic reason why 29 June 2005 05:36 (UTC)

= Disturbing category trend =

I ve noticed a disturbing trend of splitting off categories by month when doing so IMO makes the category system harder to use. For example, recently I ve nominated ) 07:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Just 09:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Okay, ) 23:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I believe some people who participate regularly in the various for-deletion articles tend to vote on nominations that are one day old, so they can go through the list of that day s nominations voting on them without having to keep track of new additions later. 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::(For the record, my nominations were almost three days old at the time I made the comment above. - ) 2 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)) :I think it s rather rude to nominate a category for deletion without letting the creator know. Yes, the CFD tag was put on but I ve been very busy and not able to monitor by (3,500 article) watchlist as closely as usual. Would ve been nice to have been asked for my view and reasons for its creation. 29 June 2005 16:43 (UTC) ::Okay, what s your argument for having these categories BTW, I m wondering, is it the responsibility of the administrator who deletes the categories to empty them (i.e., recategorize the articles and any subcategories) How would one check that this has actually been done - ) 2 July 2005 00:24 (UTC) :::I believe most category-deletion grunt work is actually done by User:Pearle, which is a bot that automatically goes through the articles removing the category tags beforehand. To find out whether a nonexistant category has articles in it just go to the non-existant category page, for example 2 July 2005 06:47 (UTC) ::::Of course, I should have known that... - ) 2 July 2005 07:04 (UTC) :::Some articles have no place in virtually any category and only exist because they were in the news. 2 July 2005 09:58 (UTC) ::::Hmm. I disagree. I just don t think we need to go down to individual months. BTW, ) 3 July 2005 05:47 (UTC) :::::By all means you can disagree. What I m saying is that it is much more polite to talk to the person that spent ages creating the category system before you CFD part of it. Perhaps, given my description, there would ve been support to keep them. As it was it was just a small handful of people that didn t see the reasoning. Also, I hardly see it as a disturbing category trend . 3 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

=Three too many=

Hi there! I just found out that there are three categories used in the Soviet history section, which kind of overlap: Executed revolutionaries, Murdered revolutionaries, and Pre-Soviet executions. The latter category sounds especially weird, because it should then include anybody in Russia who was executed before 1917. Can we do something about it, or is it meant to be this way 17:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

=CategoryTOC=

Is there anyway that I can make the index more then 1 letter, in particular 4 digits for the year so a timeline can auto generate itself

And also:

=extended catalog pipetrick syntax=

I was looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander, and it occured to me that a Category with extended pipetrick could be used to generate an index table, not just a catagory with 1 char index.

eg: by putting (maybe in a template) the following into Mount Everest: . It could/would generate a table, instead of just a (1 char) alphabetical list. And by using a second field, then table could be sorted into ascending height. This would encourage the growth of consistent indexes.

And where two table are desired, eg ordered by date climbed, and also ordered by height, then a template could be used to generate both/two catagories. But have a different name (date & height), put this value after the first pipe.

Also the column titles can be derived, eg: Height=8850. would be a column.

This would reduce the hand editing to create indices, and also improve over all consistency.

And it fits in nicely with existing syntax. 13:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

=Category request=

Maybe this category would be huge, but I think it would be useful to have a category for languages which are not the primary official language of any country; many would probably have some official status (Basque, Breton, etc), but are not the primary language of state. I m not sure what to name this category to be precise. 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Kind of an odd category: all languages, minus those that have official status somewhere. And primary and official are two entirely different matters. For example, the U.S. has no official language, though English is clearly primary, and many of the usual aspects of official language (even use on ballots) are accorded in various states or counties to various languages, obviously including Spanish, but even including Chinese. On the other hand, India has 15 official langauges; obviously, most of them are not primary. -- 05:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like what you re suggesting, ) 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

= An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category =

Are there exceptions to the following rule

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example .

For instance, many film, book, and author/artist articles have dedicated topic categories (e.g., in its bottom half.

It just looks like the topic article under the current policy ( 23:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:This has been a long ongoing topic of discussion. It seems to me that there are some very good reasons to ENCOURAGE putting an article in both the category with the same name and the category above it. The double listing makes perfect sense to me. :#The double category listing sends the message to the user that there is an article about the topic, and there are also more articles to be found in the subcategory. :#It makes it easier to find main topic articles (by eliminating having to go to the subcategory) :#It puts both articles in the list of categories for the article. There would be the normal higher level listing that all other articles get put into now when they don t have their own category. There would also be the subdirectory with the same name which is the natural jumping off point that people will look for if they want more information about the subject. :#It makes more intuitive sense for editors. The natural inclination is to put things into categories, not to take them out of categories. :#It creates a complete listing of articles at the higher level category. It is confusing to have to look at the subdirectories and the list of articles to get a complete list of topics.

:As an alternative if people want to be really consistent about the no duplication rule, a better way to do it would be to only put an article in the HIGHER level subdirectory. Then both the article and the subdirectory would be listed. In the lower level category, the one with the same name as the article, there would be a link which would be entered manually (e.g. This topic is about motion pictures. For an introduction to the topic see 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

::Whoa! I just read through most of this dicussion page, and realized that my question here has been debated A LOT! One theory put forth above is that there s a disconnect between the impulse to categorize and to classify , but I think the biggest problem of all is that there s two competing notions of hierarchy : one that there is a tree , in which it s possible to have sub-categories , and the other that there is a web of interconnected articles and categories. This is noted on 01:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC) :::Yes it has been debated quite a bit. I can t say we ve reached a consensus. I agree with what you are saying (I made many of the same points higher in the page), and I m trying to keep an open mind and come up with creative solutions. -- 07:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

= Topic article straw poll =

Please read the section above, and respond below. This is non-binding, just a starting place for the discussion to see where people stand. Thanks -- 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How should an article be categorized if it is the topic article of a category Add your name to any of the following options that you find acceptable (Short comments welcome):

A. The article should only be in the category with the same name. That category will be in the higher level category and will appear as a subdirectory. For an example see Film

B. The article should be in both the category with the same name and the higher level category. The category with the same name will also be in the higher level category. Both the article and the category will be listed in the higher level category. This seems to be the current norm. For an example see Musical theatre

Easy and functional -- 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The most natural solution, already widely used. — 00:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

C. The article should only be in the higher level category. The category with the same name will also appear as a subdirectory in the higher level category. There should be a link entered in the directory with the same name directing users to the topic article. There should be a link in the article directing users to the topic directory. For an example see Suspension bridge

Consistent and user-friendly, but more work to maintain. -- 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The best format so far... don t think it would be hard to do. — 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

==Discussion==

*Plan C. would be best, I think, if we re thinking of the same thing, and I don t think it would be hard to implement. It s consistent with the idea of categories including 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you and I are thinking of the same thing. Yes it isn t that hard to implement and it exists already on many categories and articles. The more I think about it the more I think there are advantages. It does make the notion of what should be in a category clearer, and it might get more people looking in categories. I have come across many new users who don t understand what categories are and how they work. If all the main topic articles had text that said For more articles about about this subject see: 02:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Well, rereading your idea, we aren t thinking of the same thing: since it s impossible put a topic cat in a topic article without the topic article appearing in the topic cat listing (e.g., can t categorize 02:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC) ::*It sounds like you are describing plan B. It is possible to put a topic category in a topic without the topic article appearing in the topic cat listing. You just put it in the article like so: Better yet if it was made the first item in the See Also section: :::: :::Perhaps I m not understanding you. I don t want to move where categories display. I still want them at the bottom except for the topic article which would only be in the top section in plan C. Take a look at 07:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Plan C would remove the HST cat from the blue-boxed bottom of the HST topic article. I m not into that, in which case I m for plan B. Having one (very relevant) cat exist in the See also section fragments the whole unity of the category-article structure and requires users to learn a new process: topic cats don t show up on topic article bottoms, but somewhere in the end linking text. Now something I like s much. — 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)