Category talk:Railroads in the Chicago metropolitan area

Trains Portal

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Chicago

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles

Use of collapsed cmbox and Chicago Project content category

This category was found via a list generated by a bot developer ( User talk:Xeno ) whose bot is used by the Chicago Project to find categories that are missing some elements that make an effective category or are not within the scope of the Chicago project. The actions taken were based on the audit process given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/To Do/WrkSpc01. Another document that instructs readers/editors on how to establish and use Chicago Project categories may also help in this discussion. Pknkly (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that belongs in the category space. --NE2 13:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "none of that"? The cmbox, has four parts and hopefully follows the guidelines established within wp:categorization:

(1) It informs readers that the category is a list category.Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Gives instructions on how to place items into the category list.Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Explains the types of articles that are to be placed into the list (this was a copy of the instructions that were already there).Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Further explains the types of articles to place into it by giving information or examples of what not to include within the list. Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of cmbox items, content and layout, is modeled after Template:Tracking category. So, please let me know if your objections are about the layout, the content, or something else that may not be appropriately applied. Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read {{tracking category}} - it's for categories that are not "part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme". --NE2 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something you would like me to focus on within it? As the cmbox that I used said, Category:Chicagoland railroads is a content category, not a tracking category. As far as I can tell from it or wp:categorization#Project categories the use of the cmbox is in order. Pknkly (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you don't need a box to tell you it's a content category - that's the default. --NE2 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how your experience and knowledge would recognize it as a "default". But, perhaps if you looked at it from a beginner Wikipedian's perspective the "default" may not be so clear. I don't believe there is such a thing as a default category type. It is made either a project or a content category by the types of subcategories and articles that is placed within them and how the category is to be used. That is the reason for the emphasis on declaring it one or the other. Thanks for the discussion. If you would like to continue it, perhaps the best place would be at User talk:Pknkly/TempWork03 where I'm proposing the development of a content category template modeled after the tracking category template. Pknkly (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to not waste your time. If there is a need for something like this, it should be added by the software to all categories that are not marked as project categories. Making a special template and then adding it to all content categories (!) is the wrong way to go about it. --NE2 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]