Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categorization and subcategories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EurekaLott (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 13 March 2006 (Needs to be much clearer that duplication is fine in MANY articles: Ick.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of previous discussion is here.

This page is not watched by many people.

Wikipedia talk:Categorization is a better place to have discussions about this page. Comments put there will be seen by many more people than comments left here. -- Samuel Wantman 11:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I have categorised a vast number of articles and I feel strongly that the emphasis here is all wrong. There are thousands and thousands of articles which need to be in a category and one of its subcategories because the appropriate subcategories do not all exist. The current phrasing puts the pressure on people to ignore this or to feel guilty if they don't. It needs to be more softly worded from the start, eg "ideally they should not but...". I doubt that anyone has looked at more categories than I have and the problem being addressed here just isn't a very big problem imo. However the lack of precise categorisation is, because few users have a broad understanding of what categories are available. We should be putting the emphasis on categorising accurately, putting all articles in whichever appropriate categories exist. CalJW 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Please feel free to make the changes in emphasis that you feel are necessary. -- Samuel Wantman 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be much clearer that duplication is fine in MANY articles

So I am going to change it a bit. The policy (well actually it's only a guideline so it doesn't matter much but people don't care about that if they think it backs them up) has just been quoted against me on totally false grounds. Golfcam 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I like this addition. While there are examples of articles that should be in a category and its subcategory, most of the time the practice should be avoided. The current wording essentially provides a blanket exemption for users who don't feel like following the guideline. Also, the example you provided was poor, as another user is insisting that the two categories are not related at all. - EurekaLott 19:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]