Category talk:Categories by topic
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
What does Categories by topic mean, and should it be renamed?
[edit]This is a conversation continued from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29 from where the following is copied:
- The example you gave (Category:Categories by city) along with Category:Categories by country seem to fit better under Category:Categories by region (which they are also under). While they fit the naming convention of Category:Categories by topic, they don't seem to fit the meaning. I wouldn't say that geographical location is a topic, whereas the eponymous categories do seem to be categories organised around a topic (and a portal is also, of course, a grouping of articles around a topic). I'm tempted to create Category:Categories by geographical location, but the annoying thing about categories is having to wait a while before reorganising, otherwise people don't see what you are talking about. But maybe I'll do this anyway. Carcharoth 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only sense I can make of "Category by topic" is that it is meant to contain categories with names of the form Category by <x>. In other words topic is just a filler word. And as I demostrated above categories with the name "Category by foo" contain categories with names of the form <y> by foo. If you are saying that "Categories by topic" means "categories that are about a topic" then every category should fit in there because categories are all about grouping pages by some topic or other. --JeffW 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of "Categories by topic" - and I'll move that "...by geographical location" back in there. But the name for "Categories by topic" is very misleading. The correct name eludes me, but the correct way to phrase "Categories by something" would seem to be "Categories". Looking at the other top-level entries (Lists, Portals, Fundamental), I suspect that renaming Category:Categories to Category:Category and having the former be a subcategory of the latter (on the same level as Lists and Portals) might work. But then again, it might not. The only other thing I can think of is Category:Categories by categories, which is even more confusing! Carcharoth 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Would it be acceptable for Category:Categories by topic to be named Category:Categories by...? I would suspect not. Carcharoth 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of "Categories by topic" - and I'll move that "...by geographical location" back in there. But the name for "Categories by topic" is very misleading. The correct name eludes me, but the correct way to phrase "Categories by something" would seem to be "Categories". Looking at the other top-level entries (Lists, Portals, Fundamental), I suspect that renaming Category:Categories to Category:Category and having the former be a subcategory of the latter (on the same level as Lists and Portals) might work. But then again, it might not. The only other thing I can think of is Category:Categories by categories, which is even more confusing! Carcharoth 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only sense I can make of "Category by topic" is that it is meant to contain categories with names of the form Category by <x>. In other words topic is just a filler word. And as I demostrated above categories with the name "Category by foo" contain categories with names of the form <y> by foo. If you are saying that "Categories by topic" means "categories that are about a topic" then every category should fit in there because categories are all about grouping pages by some topic or other. --JeffW 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have anything further to add, other than I would support a renaming of the category, but can't think of anything that really works. Carcharoth 07:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree they don't seem all that dissimilar maybe you could merge them all into one file like you suggested by naming a file, Category:Categories by geographical location. The only problem i see by doing so is if you were to make a category like that it could be too dense it could encompass so many things. So i think possibly condense your idea slightly to make it more specific which is what i think the original catagories were trying to accomplish. However it may also just be best to let sleeping dogs lie, if making a larger category filled with those 3 categories together (Category:Categories by city, Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by region) makes it too large, unspecific or confusing then maybe it should just be left as it is. However i do agree there should be some change.