Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Eponymous cats

I've reworded the section on WP:CAT#Eponymous categories to make it less strict. Previously it said that eponymous categories shouldn't be placed in the list categories that their corresponding articles belong to; now it says that they can for those categories for which that convention has been adopted (as seems to be common practice, and convenient in many cases). However I've retained the principle that when eponymous categories are so placed, that shouldn't exclude the corresponding articles from the category. I know this principle is often quite often violated too, but general opinion seems to be that it shouldn't be. If there are no objections to the present wording, then I think we should be looking at trying to put it into practice (i.e. re-populating the categories from which articles have been wrongly excluded due to the presence of their eponymous cats). (This continues the thread #Undercategorization above.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally see the value in deeming "eponymous categories" to be any different from any other duplicate categorization scenario. IMO, there's simply no need for the double-filing, and no need to set them apart as a special categorization rule, because it doesn't actually function any differently than any other duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the difference is that the "eponymous categories" logically have no right to be subcategories at all; they are just listed as such (in some cases) by convention. For example, Category:France is not logically a subcategory of Category:European countries (since it doesn't contain countries). That's why they need to be mentioned specifically in the guideline. And they're a bit different from some other duplicate categorization scenarios: typically all members of a duplicated subcategory will appear in the parent, but with eponymous cats only the eponymous article itself is expected to be duplicate-categorized.--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I don't understand why it's necessary to deem them a special case, not that I don't understand why it's currently deemed to be a special case. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fail to see the logic of an example in this argument: "Category:France is not logically a subcategory of Category:European countries". Since categories are artificial constructs of WP and not real world, one cannot argue that only articles are from the real world that articles belong somewhere and not categories. These are just WP rule for convenience. It is just as easy to argue that whenever an exclusively parent category has been established, as noted by the template Parentcat, then there is no way that it should contain anything except subcategories, the main article for the exclusively parent category (if one exists) and any closely related lists (if they exist). Category:European countries is in fact an perfect example of this. WP is not going to create a category named Category:European country categories in this case and for every similar case, is it? Population of parent categories with articles should not proceed; more categories that are acting as exclusive parents should be marked as such by the template and any offending articles be placed in appropriate subcat. Such population will make categories even more difficult to use by the reader and editor. And there will be more temptation to have many articles in subcategories to also be directly in the parent category because editors in the mass do not understand, do not implement, and do not document when they do, the existing non-distinguished vs distinguished category guidelines.Hmains (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I get any of that. That Cat:France is not logically a subcategory of cat:European countries is completely obvious to me - all I mean by it is that the set of "things related to France" is not a subset of the set of "European countries". Obviously we wouldn't put Paris into Cat:European countries if there were no category:France. OK, we don't necessarily want Category:European country categories for every such case (although we do do that in some cases, as in Category:Categories named after American politicians) - so we simplify by allowing eponymous categories to be placed in list categories for convenience in spite of the fact that strictly speaking it is illogical to do so. But having agreed to do that, there is no need to go one illogical step further and designate category:European countries as an exclusive parent - it is that that makes no sense to me (and is counter to what's always been written, in one form or another, in the guidelines). It would means in effect that an article that has an eponymous category is not allowed to be placed directly in any other category, thus readers looking for categories in the usual place (at the bottom of the article) will fail to find all the cats they would normally expect. (It's even worse in categories where some articles have eponymous categories and some do not - then readers browsing the category get two lists which are separated for no logical reason). What do you think is gained by excluding the countries themselves from the categories of countries?--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether something is 'illogical' seems to be a point of view and not something established here by any means, including discussion. Categories do not exist in the real world: are constructs of WP editors and can therefore be anything that WP editors want them to be. Why not just accept that having 'exclusive parent categories' is common, normal and perfectly acceptable to WP and then see what results are derived there from that are useful to the reader. WP is not about making things 'pretty' or 'logical' but making things reader useful. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed up to a point, but even WP editors have to work according to some established guidelines, and we can establish those guidelines in such a way as to make things more useful. How is it useful to readers, then, not to have any "countries" categories (or in practice to have a few randomly selected such categories) in the place they would expect to find them at the bottom of articles like France?--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Having the article France in Category:European countries seems natural to me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kotniski: I am not saying 'no guidelines'; I am saying your proposed guidelines are not helpful and go against what is often successfully used in WP and what is helpful to the reader. Extending your logic, I suppose that every article and its Eponymous category would both to have to be exactly in the same categories. Would there be exceptions? How would they be described? What would be the use of this to the reader? Next, look at category which I think is properly maintained: Category:European Union member states. Notice each of the countries is represented by a category (no less 'logical' than a country being represented by an article) which the reader can select and when they do so they get more than just the main country article, they get all kinds of articles about that country. Better for the reader. Notice that the directly included articles relate to the subject of the category: they are not random and they do belong. Notice that if all the country articles were also placed directly in this category, then these existing articles would be buried alphabetically within those new countries articles. What is the help to the reader with that? Hmains (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't quite share that analysis. What we have at Category:European Union member states is a jumble; of categories named after EU member states, and of a few assorted random articles relating to EU membership. The one thing missing is the one thing that readers would naturally expect to see in a category so named: the articles on the EU member states (France and so on). For me, this exclusion (i) does go against what is normally and naturally used in WP (i.e. if X is a Foo, then the article X is expected to be a member of Category:Foos); (ii) certainly does not help the reader (especially if the reader starts from an article like France, where you get not even a hint that Category:European Union member states exists). What I would do is put most of the random articles from this category into Category:European Union or some more appropriate subcategory thereof, populate Category:European Union member states with the country articles that normal readers would expect to find there, and optionally either (i) leave the eponymous categories there as well (probably OK in this case since the category is quite small), or (ii) take them away and leave a note on the category page that such eponymous categories exist and where they can be found. It's not ideal, but it's far more consistent with common sense and with the way categories are normally used.--Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply put: articles are not countries, no more than categories are countries. They are artificial constructs of WP. The fact that you cannot think a category represents a country as much as an article does appears to be a personal point of view and not something to be generally imposed on WP as you have done without prior discussion or general agreement. What rule is there that you can make changes to these category rules in such as case? There may be good reasons for WP to allow what you have done, but your reasons are unsupportable. In any case, you did not address my point that under your rules, "I suppose that every article and its Eponymous category would both to have to be exactly in the same categories." Do you accept this or not? If so, what are the consequences to WP? Hmains (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't changed any rules or "done" anything; I just wrote out more clearly what was already said in the guidelines (OK I did make it more strict originally, but I recently changed that back). As to whether article and epon categories should be in exactly the same categories, I don't see why not, necessarily. But if has to be one or the other, then for me it's clearly better for the articles to be widely categorized than the epon cats, as this is consistent with how we generally treat categorization on WP. (Logically we don't have to put articles whose subjects are Foos into Category:Foos, but this is what we normally do, and it seems to me that was the original intent of the category function.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the word 'logically' has anything to do with this. WP rules are whatever WP editors make up and use. I see nothing but bizarre results in any thinking that would preclude epon categories from having their article in it. If some reader goes to a category called 'France', why would they be denied the article named France, which is the main/core/central set of facts about the subject of the article, all the other articles being detail expansion thereof. Why would WP have rules that might lead someone to think that this is appropriate. Bizarre. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been a misunderstanding here I think - no-one's suggesting excluding an article from its own eponymous category.--Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kotniski. Making up arbitrary and unintuitive definitions for categories is unhelpful for readers. As a casual reader, it is rather bizarre that the article about France is not categorized in Category:European countries but that it is categorized presently in Category:French-speaking countries, Category:G8 nations, and Category:Liberal democracies. If the rationale of exclusivity were consistently applied, it would seem that if an eponymous category exists, that that should be the ONLY category to appear on the eponymous article and all other categorization would be on the category. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are giving good examples of the current category implementation of category rules that are written in such a way that few follow because they do not understand them. The implementation is poor; the rules are poor. I am trying to get thinking going that would results in better written rules that could be understood by more editors and maybe even implemented by them easily. With the rules as they are, it is any editors's guess what to do and we see the results everywhere of their guessing. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I guess I'm just completely confused by precisely who is suggesting precisely what. The guidance regarding categories has always been pretty bad, but that is mostly because there is no true consensus as to what a category is on Wikipedia. Some categories are for things that have some, often tenuous, association with a subject. Other categories for things that are all of the same type. There are probably some categories that are a blend. These different purposes for categories can often cause some confusing when moving up or down a category hierarchy, as when a loose "associated with" category shows up as a subcategory of a more strictly defined "type of" category. older ≠ wiser 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the guidance recently, not by changing the rules (I hope) but by rewriting it to make it clearer what we have. It remains true, though, that what we have doesn't answer every question. It does answer this question, however - it says (as the old WP:Categorization and subcategories used to say) that the presence of an eponymous category as a "subcategory" of a list category should not cause the corresponding article to be excluded from that list category (WP:EPON). Hmains, you obviously don't agree with this rule - how would you propose amending it?--Kotniski (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous categories should be viewed as parallel to the articles that define them. It is only logical to me that an article should be in every category in which its eponymous category is placed, and vice-versa. I honestly have not seen a clear argument against making this standard practice. Postdlf (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure who is advocating what, but I think it is somewhat nonsensical that Category:European countries contains only subcategories and that the actual articles for the various countries are not part of that category. older ≠ wiser 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Before trying to put words in a guideline, first we need to know what we are trying to achieve. I see three choices for discussion, each of which currently has widespread use throughout WP:
  • Option 1: An article and its eponymous category should both exist in same categories. What are the benefits and drawbacks of this to the WP reader?
  • Option 2: An article with an eponymous category should only exist in its eponymous and no other category. The eponymous category will be used in all other categories. What are the benefits and drawbacks of this to the WP reader?
  • Option 3: Either the article or its eponymous category or both can exist in other categories. What then is the method that is to be used to make one of these three choices in the case of each article and each category?

I don't think appeals to personal 'logic', current or past guidelines, or current practices make for good discussion. WP guidelines and practices can be made to be anything that editors want them to be. What is the best for the reader to navigate to articles should be the only question. Unfortunately, WP editors have no way of knowing what readers think or what and so assertions by editors about the reader wants are usually just assertions of what the editor personally thinks. Hmains (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

...Because editors don't read articles? Huh. Anyway, the exact same navigation needs exist for articles as well as subcategories so there is no reason to categorize them differently, so option 1 is the proper option. France should be in Category:European countries because it is a member of that classification; it is not just a member of its own topic and readers should not be forced to pop through that extra step if they want to go to related articles rather than just sub-topics. Nor can one even see on the article what categories exist that the topic belongs in if purely eponymous categorization is followed. Postdlf (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Following Hmains' suggestion above, I've tried to list the possible approaches and the pros and cons of each, with a view to throwing it open to wider discussion via an RFC. An initial draft is at Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC. Please improve it if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see a case being made for a change. What you are proposing seems to cause more confusion in what categories contain and solves nothing. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by a change? I'm proposing that we do as it says in the guidelines, or if not, then at least decide rationally what we do want to do and document that in the guidelines. The current situation, where people in different places do different and incompatible things, seems to be the way to maximize the confusion. --Kotniski (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to consider templates as well so that Wikipedia navigation is reasonably consistent; many templates are (from this user's viewpoint) only category pages with better editor control. While {{Template:European countries}} doesn't exist (yet!), Template:Santa Clara County, California, for example, does. As does both Palo Alto, California and Category:Palo Alto, California. The templates I've looked at all use the article, not the cat. Thus, I believe, the T.C. Mits are misled, never realizing that Wikipedia has more on the subject that just the one article. 69.106.253.194 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that template is at Template:Countries of Europe. —JAO • T • C 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:European countries and Template:Countries of Europe??? Poor T.C. Mits who has to figure out what the different names imply and why France might be in one but not the other! 69.106.253.194 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going a bit off topic here, but the ordinary reader never has to see or parse the name "Template:xxx" - they just see the navbox which the template produces. And I would imagine the vast majority of readers, on clicking a link to France say, expect to go to the article on France (from which they can, if they want, click again to go to the category France), rather than to go to the category first. Basically, the article, with all its links, is a far more usable tool for finding information about France (even such information as is not in that article itself) than the category page is.--Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your are correct in that users don't see or parse Template,... etc. but look, for example, at Category:Operating systems. The user sees both the category Operating Systems and the displayed-template Operating Systems at the same time. I would reasonably expect the category page "European countries" to include the template "Countries of Europe" - templates do, after all, provide useful navigation helps. In the particular case of operating systems, there is little overlap between the category information (subcategories) and the template (specific articles). Users may, as you suggest, do better to go from article to article via links, but navigation with categories and templates should still be an organized coherent whole. tooold (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What categories should NOT be created

There is currently a section on the project page to guide editors on "What categories should be created". This guideline says that categories should be created that are "useful for readers" and based on essential defining features of article subjects.
However, there is no guidance on what categories should not be created. I think this is important to discuss, at least for scientific and technical subjects. So I offer the following example / analogy. (Please don't shred the example. Instead think about how it might apply to other scientific / technical subjects that you have participated in editing.)

• The heart, uterus, stomach and bladder are muscular organs (use muscular tissue) as described in their respecitve WP articles. This is WP:Verifiable information.
• The determination of "useful" and "defining feature" is somewhat subjective, so an editor creates Category:Muscular organs and populates it.
• There is no published material in the scientific fields of medicine or biology that ever categorizes organs in this manner.

Does the creation of this category then become original research?
Should there be a guideline here stating that for specialized, technical, or scientific subjects that a WP:Reliable source should be provided that demonstrates items are categorized in the proposed manner? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be too narrow to require that a given categorization is always reflected in reliable sources first. There is room for creatively organizing information on Wikipedia, provided that you aren't inventing or misrepresenting facts by doing so. But that issue could still be relevant to determining whether the category is useful or well-founded. If no literature outside of Wikipedia uses a term (such as "muscular organ"), then that term shouldn't be used because it won't mean anything, and we shouldn't invent terms. Category names should be completely obvious as to what articles should be included. A category name that blandly describes a fact, such as Category:Organs containing muscular tissue, might be appropriate as long as that is easily understood. But then some understanding of the subject matter is required to determine whether the category is useful even though it is factual. Using your example, given that organs (always? by definition?) consist of different kinds of tissue, it might not help anyone navigate articles or better understand the article subject. The lack of any medical literature classifying organs by tissue type (as opposed to system) could arguably support that such a categorization scheme would not be worthwhile. Postdlf (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a type of category that I don't think should exist, Conflicts in a particular year. See Dimadick (talk · contribs)'s contributions -- any suggestions as to what to do? See here [1] where he removed a century category and replaced it with a category for a particular year. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The clarification suggested by ¢Spender1983 above is timely and welcome. As far as I am aware, categories are nowhere exempted from general wikipedia principles such as WP:NOR or WP:RS, but it would be useful to make that explicit in the guideline. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Marginal case

I hope this is a good place to ask this question — the category's talk page reminds me that such pages are often not widely watched, and I feel a bit silly asking at the help desk.

What is the best way to categorize an animated serial that was a segment in another (non-animated) programme? The article in question is The Infinite Quest, an animated Doctor Who serial that aired as part of the series Totally Doctor Who. The closest category I can find is Category:Animated television series, but technically speaking "The Infinite Quest" wasn't a television series, since it aired as part of another programme. Should this go in the parent category, Category:Animated series? Or should Category:Animated television series be renamed to something like Category:Animation on television, since it also contains Category:Animated television specials, which are also technically not series? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC reminder

Input welcomed at the draft RfC (mentioned above under #Eponymous cats): at Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC.--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Disentangling race & ethnicity

We've a couple of related nominations, intended to help disentangle the many cross-categorization and category intersections that have arisen recently:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:People by race or ethnicity
  • eliminating race categories (leaving ethnicity only)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#People not by ethnicity
  • splitting ethnicity from nationality (leaving nationality only)

Should the first be successful, we must amend the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies and related guidelines to clarify that "race" is not appropriate for categorization.

The second is somewhat dependent on the first. However, the inclusion of ethnic "origin" and "descent" is already against policy without notability, and these should never have been intermixed with the less contentious (more easily verifiable) nationality categories.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT = Pagename

I don't know why explanation of this was changed. I can't even find a discussion about that. In the "improved version" changed here is not allowed to add DEFAULTSORT even if its values is the same with the pagename. I think that:

• We should not add extra code with no good reason.
• "This helps bots to see if value was checked" is not a good reason for me. Not all articles must have defaultsort which is just a tool to help categorisation. People can always check if the the article name suffices to correct categorise the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kotniski proposed same changes in February 24 1:46 and did them... in February 26 11:13 because "no response at talk, so being bold and substituting the improved version" and as far as I can understand in the proposal, under a section called "REWRITE", there was nothing about DEFAULTSORT written. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what change/restoration you would like to see? The guideline currently says: "Default sort keys are often defined even where they do not seem necessary – when they are the same as the page name, for example – in order to prevent other editors or automated tools from trying to infer a different default." So it is not forbidding anything one way or the other. The previous version used more words, but effectively said the same thing. What would you propose that it say?--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly my apologies if the text above is a bit fiercefull. I was trying to act fast to stop a bot adding defaultsort where not necessary. Secondly, I think ambiguities lead to bad situations. I think we have to say that DEFAULTSORT should not be present if not needed. I think this is what common logic addresses. We add DEFAULTSORT to help categorisation and avoid pipes. DEFAULSORT can be used in non human articles as well. Not everything is human-centric. So, I don't think we have to allow defaultosrt in articles about humans just to satisfy automated tools. Any editor automated tool should check if the pagename is enough for correct categorisation. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but you are proposing something new (it has nothing to do with the diff you refer to above; and as far as I know bots have been adding these unnecessary default keys for quite some time). Perhaps you could make an explicit proposal as to what the guideline should say, then notify the interested parties so we can get a discussion going in one place about the pros and cons.--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the problem broke out the last 2 weeks, that's why I didn't notice the change before. I was busy in February and I think I was online for only some minutes per day. The last 2 weeks a chain of changes started with the approval of User:DefaultsortBot only after less than 4 days of discussion and some changes in AWB as well. Anyway, I'll contact User:DefaultsortBot to stop its actions until we come to a solution. Thanks for the quick answers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal feelings here tend to agree with what has been longstanding. The version before Kotniski's rewrite said:

“ In the absence of a {{DEFAULTSORT}}, the default sort key is the article title. It is therefore not technically necessary to provide a {{DEFAULTSORT}} value if the article title is the desired default sort key. However, it is still a good idea to provide an explicit {{DEFAULTSORT}} in these cases. Explicitly stating a default sort key is preferable to having no default sort key, as this leaves a record of the decision that the title is the sort key. Leaving it blank means that later editors cannot tell which articles have been checked for default sort and which have not. ”

While the rewritten version doesn't stress this quite as much, the point remains the same -- inserting a {{DEFAULTSORT}}, even when it matches the name of the page, leaves a tangible record that it was thought about. Matt (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, also, that having a {{DEFAULTSORT}} on the page, even when it is equal to the page title, helps bots such as ListasBot do their job. Matt (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think our mean should become our target. Our target is to correct categorise articles not add DEFAULTSORT everywhere. DEFAULTSORT helps on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see that it matters much - if people want to go round putting in default sort keys, then it's fairly harmless, even if it does seem to some of us to be a waste of their time. However, if the default key is supposed to be an indicator that a considered decision has been, then surely it shouldn't be a bot going round putting them in - how is a bot supposed to make a considered decision?--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This bot is only going around biography pages and pulling it from the {{WPBiography}} banner's listas parameter. A human would have had to have made the decision on that one previously. Matt (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#DEFAULTSORT capitalization. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 00:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see this discussion going nowhere fast, so although I don't entirely agree with it, I'll recode the bot to ignore situations where DEFAULTSORT == PAGENAME. Matt (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing company articles

Comparing the IBM article's categories:

[[Category:IBM|IBM]] [[Category:Companies established in 1888]] [[Category:Companies based in Westchester County, New York]] [[Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average]] [[Category:Electronics companies of the United States]] ... (more "companies" categories) [[Category:UML Partners]] [[Category:Cloud computing vendors]] [[Category:Cloud computing providers]]

to those of IPL Information Processing Limited

[[Category:Software companies of the United Kingdom]] [[Category:Management consulting firms of the United Kingdom]] ... (more "companies", "consulting firms" categories) [[Category:Media technology]] [[Category:Transportation software]] [[Category:Government software]] [[Category:Bath and North East Somerset]] [[Category:Companies based in Somerset]]

Company/firm/vendor/provider and location categories are common to both. Only the IPL article includes software and technology categories - categories relating to IPL's products. Thus the question: should the article for a company include categories for the products of that company?

The same question, in a different form: Should a product category page, say Category:Word processors, include both products and companies that manufacture them?

And a 2nd question: Where should I have found this answer without having to ask here? The alternate form for that question is "Where should the answer to this question be placed so that others can find it?" Thanks 69.106.253.194 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know the answer personally, but a better place to ask would probably be Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The people there specialize in categories, and are more knowledgeable in the criteria for articles to be in certain categories.Fingers^OnRoids 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question moved here from Help per suggestion.69.106.253.194 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category for stub templates

the Category:Stub templates was deleted some time ago. Before creating it again, I want to ask: Is it ok if I create it? there are lots of stub templates categories: Category:Drink stub templates, Category:Japan stub templates, Category:Singapore stub templates, Category:Astronomy stub templates, they all belong to some parent categories, whose top level parent should be Category:Stub templates Ark25 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there's some history to this page. I'd recommend reading through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 30#Category:Stub templates to figure out why it was deleted in the first place. If/when you recreate it, you should probably address the reasons for why it was deleted in the first place. Matt (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous categories RFC live

The RfC mentioned several times above, on eponymous categories and what to do about them, is now live. Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC and comment at that talk page. Thanks. Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Subcategorization

Updated Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization with {{allincluded}} (been around for ages), and {{distinguished subcategory}} (my recent creation to match). This should help document previous decisions.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good. Good. Nothing is mentioned herein about {{parentcat}}. Should this be included in this discussion? Hmains (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• {{catdiffuse}} is already mentioned. Looking at them, hard to tell the difference? Any objection to merging them?
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, if along the same lines, some categories get marked as {{allincluded}} and some get marked as {{distinguished subcategory}}, is there a 3rd or 4th template that would allow complete coverage of all category types by a template? Would any category end up with multiple such templates? Hmains (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's my {{catdesc}}, which (though probably still in development) is designed to document any category fully, with information for both readers and editors. It's rather complicated though - but that's because categorization is complicated.--Kotniski (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm generally opposed to these heavily parser functioned, all-in-one, templates. Categorization should not be complicated. Each should do one thing well. Otherwise, it should be split.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• OMG! This is just wrong! List categories are not for "articles on subjects in a particular class" (plural, like Americans), they're categories with "list of" articles in them. And a host of other nonsense.... As the first commenter on the talk page noted, this is a monstrosity. I gave up counting at 40+ named parameters, with many subparameters. Nominated for deletion. What a waste of an hour of my day!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, the term "list categories" is presently defined (here in WP:CAT) as list-like categories, not categories of list-like articles. But maybe it shouldn't be? It's very easily misunderstood. —JAO • T • C 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• to answer WASimpson above: {{parentcat}} has always been used differently from {{catdiffuse}}. The former means that the category should contain nothing except subcats and perhaps a main article or list; the latter means that the number of articles in the category is too large or tends to get too large and needs to be reduced by adding subcats to handle the problem--with no attempt or plan to try to subcat all the category's articles. Both are rather a mechanical/physical method of trying to manage category size and not part of some larger, logical category management scheme. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• (NB: "has always been" is relative, as these are both so new that I don't remember either of them.) Perhaps somebody changed the wording over time, as they currently read,

1. Catdiffuse: "... It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories."
2. Parent category: "Due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages."

But I like the cool graphic on catdiffuse. Catdiffuse should be merged with (redirected to) Parentcat, as the latter matches {{Wikipedia parent category}}, making things easier to remember.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Circular references

Where is the best place to report circular references? And how can they be discovered? Like for example the list generated automatically here: ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea#Circular_references. I noticed Category:Epistemology <—> Category:Knowledge for example Ark25 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Catmore template

I have left a note at Template_talk:Catmore#Link_to_Portal:Contents.2FCategorical_index that {{catmore}} (which is protected from editing) could have its "category" link go to a better destination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do people pipe like this?

See [2] - it's something I've seen other editors do also. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? The unnecessary use of sort keys when the default has been defined? The use of ", The" at the end of the sort key? Something else?--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The text after the pipe determines the order in which articles appear in the category list. WP:Categorization#Sort_order Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I obviously missed that. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Save or delete template for documenting categories

For those that believe category pages should contain useful information for readers and documentation for editors, please contribute at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_6#Template:Catdesc. If you think this template is fatally flawed, then please suggest how else we should be solving this problem. If you think the template is potentially useful, then please !vote to keep it;) (and suggest improvements to it if you can).--Kotniski (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted (roughly 4:1, the only 1 being Kotniski), so Kotniski took it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18#Template:Catdesc.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roughly 4:1 means exactly 2:1. Please stop this campaign of personalized criticism - I haven't done anything to offend you (have I? please say if I have), I don't know why you need to regard someone as an enemy just because they disagree with you on one or two things. --Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Roughly 4:1" means 3:1 on the discussion itself, including closer, and 1 that asked for deletion on the Talk page and was quoted in the nomination:

This monstrosity turns simple categories into a template that's terrifying to new editors and annoys even old hands like me. It should be deleted before it spreads (WP:CREEP). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you deny that everybody was supporting deletion (other than you)?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The closer counts as a vote?? Anyway, does it matter? I hope we can carry on without any more of these unnecessary personal digs.--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on cat usage

This RfC might interest some regular editors of this page:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia (RFC) — Could we have a wider view on the appropriate use of Wikipedia categories? (e.g. is Category:Dyslexia appropriate for articles such as List of languages by writing system and categories such as Category:Writing systems?

Since it's been filed as a "language" RfC, and it's not actually on the cat page itself, I thought that a little more advertising might be useful. All editors are welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) who is not watching this page

Suggestion regarding {{catmore}}

I have made this suggestion to expand the functionality of {{catmore}}. Please comment. Thanks, —G716 <^T·_C> 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do about category descriptions

I've started a discussion here about what information is appropriate in category descriptions, with particular regard to how much information should be retained if {{catdesc}} is to be deleted (see thread above). Please have a look.--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalising every word in the defaultsort

Hi, all. I had a conversation with User:Drilnoth about a week ago when I noticed this edit his bot made, adding {{DEFAULTSORT:Drosera Binata}} to the article Drosera binata. I thought it was some kind of bug, so I opened a discussion with Drilnoth and he explained WP:CAT#Using sort keys, especially the bit about "To ensure that entries differing by letter case appear together, apply the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key."

I'm here to ask for clarification, then. Does this mean, specifically, that each article is meant to get a DEFAULTSORT and each word should be capitalized, regardless of how the article is titled? e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Drosera Binata}} instead of {{DEFAULTSORT:Drosera binata}}. I find two things wrong with this:

1. Specifically for species titled at the scientific name, this makes little sense. People used to seeing the specific epithet lowercase, binata for example, as called for by scientific conventions, will notice the defaultsort in the edit window and think it's a mistake, as I did, and attempt to "correct" it.
2. The general idea of adding defaultsorts to articles is to allow them to appear in the category correctly, alphabetically. Adding defaultsorts with uppercase species epithets to species articles titled at the species name has the unfortunate effect of displacing the few articles with defaultsorts away from articles on species in the same genus. For example, in Category:Flora of Ohio, we could have the species Drosera intermedia and Drosera rotundifolia. With no defaultsort on either article, they will alphabetize as is and correctly fit next to each other. If we were to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Drosera Rotundifolia}} to that article but not to D. intermedia, the D. rotundifolia article would alphabetize before D. intermedia in Category:Flora of Ohio. Also check out Category:Chromis, as pointed out by User:Hqb; the first two species listed have defaultsorts added and thus are out of alphabetical order with the rest of the articles.

Any thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalising every word is often not appropriate

I've just had a discussion with someone who is insisting that it was correct for them to have changed the defaultsort of Banksia gardneri var. brevidentata from "Banksia gardneri var. brevidentata" to "Banksia Gardneri Var. Brevidentata", in violation of the rules of botanical nomenclature, the conventions of Wikipedia plant editors, and the organisation of the containing category; because this guideline contains the sentence

"To ensure that entries differing by letter case appear together, apply the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case."

That's a bloody ridiculous thing to say, and I'll be changing it.

Hesperian 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very bold of you, but there are already two sections here currently devoted to this topic. I've moved this section up. Please give the discussion time to mature. Surely, there are plenty of pages already following the current convention, so a specialty convention for taxonomy should be well-documented.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a taxonomy-specific convention. My revision said nothing whatsoever about taxonomy. This is much more general than that. I support the guideline telling people how to impose a case-insensitive category sort, but am opposed to it telling people to impose a case-insensitive category sort. Some categories are better off with a case-sensitive category sort; the species examples given here and below are examples of such categories, but that doesn't make this a proposal for a taxonomy-specific convention. This is general opposition to a thou-shalt-have-case-insensitive-sort-orders rule.

So I now see that Rkitko raised the same issue four days earlier, and no-one even bothered to respond. Where is this discussion that needs time to mature? I have moved this thread up further, into the section where Rkitko raises the same issue, as opposed to something obliquely related. And, to counter the perception that this is about taxonomy, I have re-titled the section. (I'm pretty sure Rkitko will let me get away with that). Hesperian 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I perhaps broke the first rule of Wikipedia, don't write something that can be responded with WP:TLDR, which is maybe why I received no replies. The title of the section is much improved, thanks. Apologies for misleading others that this is only about taxonomy. I concur with Hesperian; not all category sorts need to have every word capitalized. I find this advice to be counter-intuitive, especially when it's an unnecessary "fix" in many categories. I think the way Hesperian reworded the section is appropriate. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase category sort

Aside from that above (separating the headings for separate comments), I also wanted to ask general opinions on lowercase category sorts. The relevant sentence in WP:CAT#Using sort keys is "Don't begin sort keys with lower case letters, unless you want to create a separate sublist (the ordering places lower case letters after all capital letters)." It doesn't specifically say we can't sort by lowercase, but I can see possible resistance when implemented in some locations. Take species articles categorized in their genus categories (only species in genus categories; this doesn't work for species categorized in higher taxa categories). Because in the binomial name the species epithet is always lowercase, the trend at WP:TOL articles seems to be to prefer the lowercase sort. E.g., see Category:Utricularia and more impressively Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name, where both uppercase and lowercase sorts are used. We had a brief discussion on this back in September at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive26#Scientific names in genus categories and the consensus appears to be for lowercase sorts. My question is: is this acceptable and within guidelines? If not, I'd like to argue for it. If so, I'd like to ask that this example possibly be included in the section as a place where lowercase sorts are preferred. Any thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As a reasonable convention for sorting a specific group of categories has been developed, I'd like it to be documented here.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WAS.--Kotniski (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found this discussion. I've been sorting them like this because it seems sloppy to have the first genus letter capitalized with all the species articles, even in small categories. Pzrmd (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources - A huge hole

Given that [Category:whatever] doesn't support explicitly attaching a source to a category assignment, what is the rule/convention for providing sources to support categorization? I don't think there is one, and IMO, allowing people to assign categories without explicit sources is a huge hole and the rules ought to be clarified. Long-term, MediaWiki should be extended to allow explicit sources for category assignment and most categorizations should have a source reference. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that the article content in general should support the categories that are on it. There's no place to add a special reference annotation for "why is this individual category here?", but an article shouldn't be added to any category for which the article's content itself doesn't explain why it's there. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the category should be obvious when reading the article, or am I missing something? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are missing anything, but many articles are missing something, at least judging by the number of category assignments that are not supported by verifiable content in those articles. IMO, the lack of a method to explicitly assign a source to a category assignment means that category assignments are often unverifiable. Even when the article content does include sourced content that supports the assignment, the linkage may not be obvious or the content might be deleted in the future. Leaving things as they stand means there will be a constant stream of unverifiable category assignments despite the rules. I don't think WikiMedia supports explicit sources for category assignments so there's not much we can do except delete category assignments that aren't supported by the article content. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I commonly remove a category with the comment, 'Category not supported by article text'. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• We keep having this problem, over and over again. There used to be guidelines here and elsewhere stating that unsourced categories must be promptly removed, I'll try to remember to look for them (probably in histories) and restore them. Somebody severely revised this guideline without any notice.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's currently addressed in the second paragraph of WP:CAT#Categorizing pages - if you want to expand on what's there, that's fine by me.--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the link. The point seems pretty buried to me. (What else would I say given I didn't see it! <g>) I think the topic deserves a separate section on the page, even if that section is short. That will give it more weight than it has now and help it to stand out. I also think the advice to add templates for unsourced categorizations should be changed. Yes, the {{Category unsourced}} template is available, but as the article stands now adding the template is the only recourse for an unsourced category. Clearly, removing the category link is an option. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories that are unsourced or irrelevant

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 6

• Template:Category unsourced – has no verifiable, reliable sources.
• Template:Category relevant? – both unsourced and irrelevant (unsupported by even a passing mention in the text)

I've nominated them for deletion, as they present an attractive nuisance. Editors may think it's a good idea to leave an unsourced or irrelevant category on an article, simply because these templates exist. Something like {{fact}} for categories, except these present a large block of text.

In both cases, the category should be removed entirely – especially in the latter case. These have been used on biographical articles. In one case, the unsourced WP:GRS category has been left on the WP:BLP article for nearly two years! When I've removed the category, was reverted with the edit summary (revert: the fact that a maintenance item has been outstanding for a long time is not a reason to remove it.)

Please join the discussion.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We HAVE joined the discussion. You haven't. As witnessed by the fact that you keep making your edit. We call that "edit warring". The only right thing to do in Wikipedia is WAIT for the outcome of the discussion. NOT to act upon YOUR opinion. Consensus, in other words. (Stresses added to fascilitate understanding of the important things.) Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stop these ad hominem personal attacks. As the nominator, I'm obviously part of the discussion. Your egregious misrepresentation is poisoning the well. AFAICT, there is no edit warring on that discussion.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no attacks, sorry. Ad hominem, or personal. In English or in Latin. The edit warring takes place on Wieland Speck, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:William_Allen_Simpson_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Closed no violation, before I'd even had an opportunity to respond. Moreover, irrelevant to this section's subject. A perfect example of your attempt to poison the well.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you discussing about a particular article now? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Category backbone outline (basic category structure outline)

Level of maximum summarisation:

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Physics

Physics -> Biology

Physics -> Biology -> Physics

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Following summarisation level:

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Physics

Physics -> Biology      (precellular life)

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information      (Conditionality of animal motility; Knowledge, Learning, Memory, Science; Language, Logic)

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Technology      (Application of Knowledge / Learning / Memory / Information)

−−−−−−−−−−

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of Physics      (Physics, Physical Sciences)

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of Physics -> Technology -> Technology of Physics      (Physical application of Technology; Technology applied to environment conditioning and to physical objects; Technology of generic machines / tools)

−−−−−−−−−−

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology"      (Biology, Biological Sciences)

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology" -> Technology -> Technology of "Physics -> Biology"      (for instance, Health technology)

−−−−−−−−−−

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information"      (Information and Knowledge Sciences; Linguistics, Logic)

Physics -> Biology -> Cellular life -> Multicellular life -> Animal life -> Perception, Information -> Information of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information" -> Technology -> Technology of "Physics -> Biology -> Perception, Information"      (Information technology; for instance, Video and Audio technologies; Computers for information processing)

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

--Faustnh (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)