Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

As this noticeboard is now closed users are advised to direct their comments or questions to the village pump. 22:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category tree

The <categorytree></categorytree> markup has been redundant for a while (ever since all the subcats were included on every page when there are more than 200 pages listed). It cause a very ugly and annoying clutter that is now completely unnecessary. I want to have all these tags rooted out and removed. It tried to get it sorted over at WP:BOTS but they want some sort of discussion on it before doing it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, though I wonder if you could point to an example. I never liked the <categorytree> markup and always considered it to be a sub-optimal implementation. The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be for all category pages – or, at least, those with subcategories – to have a small, floating link in the top left corner with the following code: [[Special:CategoryTree/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Category tree]]. I don't know, however, whether this type of change can be implemented locally on en-wiki or requires a dev update to the MediaWiki software. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are "the subcats ... included on every page when there are more than 200 pages listed"? - I am not seeing that. - jc37 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American people by occupation by state

I am requesting comment on a proposal to clarify the scope of the American people by occupation by state category tree. I would highly appreciate comments or suggestions about how we could attempt to address the issues that exist. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kwork2/Archive 3

Can an admin remove Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages from User talk:Kwork2/Archive 3?—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent unnecessary sub-categories

I've noticed that User:RafikiSykes has unilaterally created numerous subcategories, for example, for Julie Andrews, Elizabeth Taylor and Andy Marray. However, this seems counterproductive for many, if not all cases, in merely adding complexity and more steps for users. It's hard to imagine most people wanting to look at images preferring to filter only images for a particular decade, film or location. In all the cases of such new categories I've viewed, they all strike me as pointless since most of the images fit on a single page already. I think they should be reverted and the subcategories removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The method of sorting Andy murray by year had already been done with the 2009 category etc before I even joined wiki. I simply added some more in line with that as it seemed strange to have some years split and not others.87.114.21.104 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Actresses

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. (the category link is currently a redirect).

It may be seen as an unusual DRV, because the relevant CFD took place 6 years. So I thought it fair to list it here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Championship

Hello. I created this page, but have probably gone to the limit of my Wikipedia knowledge. Someone has been onto it asking for it to be categorised. Can anyone help?? Thanks Shenko316 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a category as a subcategory

It seems that Category:Chinese multilingual support templates should be a subcategory of Category:Multilingual support templates, but I can't find instructions on how to add a category as a subcategory of a category. Likewise Category:Japonic multilingual support templates and Category:Korean name templates. LittleBen (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are fine as they are. Category:Chinese multilingual support templates is categorised in Category:Sino-Tibetan multilingual support templates which is part of Category:Multilingual support templates, so there is no need for the former to be categorised that way.

There does not seem to be any similarity whatsoever between the different Chinese-related languages or Chinese-related character sets and Standard Tibetan. LittleBen (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should also be directly a subcategory of "Multilingual support templates", since several of the Chinese templates are also used for non-Sino-Tibetan language articles that directly use Chinese character derivatives, or because the complex templates are adaptable enough to be used for their particular languages. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Altaic languages article says that it's debatable (questionable) whether Japanese and Korean can be classified as Altaic languages, so surely that classification would neither be understood by, nor acceptable to, the majority. (I can't imagine anyone thinking of searching for Japanese templates under "Altaic language templates"). LittleBen (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These languages and categorisation schemes are completely out of my field of interest; I only outlined how those two template categories are already part of the parent category. Whether it is appropriate to have them categorised that way or whether the categories are appropriately named should probably involve editors from relevant projects, e.g. WP:WikiProject Japan, WP:WikiProject Korea, WP:WikiProject China. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posted here, here, and here. LittleBen (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Town Water Supply

I want you to create a page on 'Treatment of Town Water Supply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.26.220 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location categories

I think we should have categories for events, objects, etc. located off planet. categories for near earth orbit, or geostationary orbit, for objects on the moon, on mars. not a lot yet, but since we can categorize earth bound events and objects by their location, why not such off planet? I would start with Category:Events in near-Earth orbit, Category:Events on the Moon, Category:Events on Mars, Category:Objects in near-Earth orbit. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli martial arts

I was just looking at the World Muaythai Council article and noticed it was in Category:Israeli martial arts. I went to that page and found virtually every martial art is listed there. Is there an easy way to correct that? Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the Category is not listed in those articles. It seems to be some sort of global command or perhaps a template. No idea how to fix.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The problem was with a link added to {{Martial arts}} the other day. It may take a little while for the change to be reflected on the category page. - Eureka Lott 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksPeter Rehse (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American novelists vs. American women novelists

This has been discussed, and resolved, through Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists. The result was, keep and merge the women novelists to the parent, which is in line with current guidance at WP:EGRS. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This has come up on Twitter, so there will probably be incoming.

At some point the women writers in Category:American Novelists were moved to Category: American Women Novelists. I doubt that it was the intention that "American Novelists" mean exclusively "American Male Novelists" (a presently nonexistent category).

The obvious change is to make all members of American Women Novelists also members of American Novelists.
The pedantic change is to create a subcategory "American Male Novelists"; however, this would at least require the addition of "American Gender-Unspecified Novelists" (I can think of at least one who writes SF), and would more likely require a large number of further variants that Wiki would war over forever.

The intent was probably to reduce the number of novelists in the "American Novelists" category; the unfortunate effect is to exclude women novelists from a category to which they belong.

Serpyllum (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Tan posted about this on her Twitter account, and I understand other authors have weighed in off-Wiki as well. I think she does have a point. Why *does* WP have a Cat:American novelists and a Cat:American women novelists? What's the point and, also, what message does it send? IMO, I think that the 'Cat:American women novelists' should be considered for deletion...does it *matter* what gender a novelist is? And, frankly, if the subjects themselves (Are there any WP:BLP concerns as well?) object to their being put into a WP Category I think that should probably also be taken into account. Shearonink (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its been done before Category:American male actors with wonderful counterparts like Category:Indian actresses -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects themselves object to this categorization... seems like that ought to have some bearing on the issue. Also see this story from The Independent, this New York Times piece, this New Statesman story, this NPR blog, this story from Jezebel.Com and so on. Identifying an author as male or female has little to no bearing on how they do their job... with the Categories you mentioned above, a male actor and a female actor would usually be hired on the basis of their acting ability *and* appearance - TV/film/theatre are visual mediums. One wouldn't hire Rupert Grint or Conan O'Brian to be Othello or Liam Neeson to be Batgirl. The written page is a written medium...none of us can tell, from the black & white marks on this page what sex Wikipedia editors are. Designating an author into a Category solely on the basis of their sex would seem to be an artificial distinction having little to do with their actual job. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This category (and several related categories) are being discussed at Category talk:American women novelists and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. It probably would be best to continue this conversation there instead of fragmenting it further. - Eureka Lott 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I did do a search and couldn't find any links to ongoing discussions elsewhere on-Wiki, so my intent was not to fragment but to centralize and gather a consensus. Will continue there. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue's main discussion forum on-Wiki seems to be at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24 in the Category:American women novelists section. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has those categories for the same reason it has every other category. That is, to simplify navigation. There are no messages or implications. It is not a relegation. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is demeaning, and separative. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonexistent category with redlinks to it: create the category of delete the links?

I was looking at our Gideon Macon page (potential COI Notice: I am a direct descendant) and noticed a redlinked category; Macon family, with Frances Jones (colonist), Gideon Macon and Nathaniel Macon in the category.

I would like to fix the redlinks. The question is whether to delete the category on those three pages or to create the category page. I am leaning towards deleting the links because this does not seem like a particularly useful category, but I would like a second opinion.

If the category is created, the following pages also belong in the category:
Uncle Dave Macon --Nathaniel Macon was his great-great-uncle.
Robert B. Macon -- Gideon Macon was his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

The following pages do not:
Robert C. Macon -- his Father was born Edward Newton Meekins, changed it to Macon.
Mark Macon -- I cannot find any ancestry info on him. Possible descendant of a slave owned by a Macon, many of whom took the Macon name.
Max Macon -- he bears a family resemblance, but I cannot find any ancestry info.
Robert le Maçon -- athough there has been speculation, nobody has traced Gideon Macon's ancestry.
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an article indicating that a particular family group are notable, please delete the category links. I have created Macon (surname) as a split from the disambiguation page, so please expand the list there instead, adding info & sources about the history of the name. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Category: American novelists

In the category page for American novelists, the list of individual author articles is so long that a casual reader may think it is intended to be approximately complete. Therefore I have proposed [1] to change the description of the list of individual articles to "This list of individual authors is intended to assist the categorization process; it is not intended to be complete. For a list intended for use by the general public, see List_of_American_novelists [9]." I would appreciate comments on this proposal. Olorinish (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to category guidance

I've made some edits/clarifications to the category guidance - the diffs can be seen here. Please take a look and send any comments to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#May 2013 changes to guidance. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing LGBT with sexual assault of children

The category "Childhood-related LGBT films" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Childhood_LGBT-related_films ) is dominated by films that are actually about pedophiles seducing children. IMHO, films that are primarily about that type of relationship are not correctly identified as being LGBT. Either way, rather than having an argument on the page where two people who have different ideas simply spout their viewpoint, I thought it worthwhile to bring this up as a categorization issue. In a controversial proposal such as this category is implicitly making, I would think it would be crucial that the categorization is based on something other than OR or personal convictions one way or the other. Therefore, I would think that such a category should be refrained from unless reliable, objective sources can be found to give us a guideline other than disparate people's own subjective conclusions regarding the issue. The issue is emotionally close to me and so for the sake of objectivity I usually avoid editing such topics myself. I am bringing this to your attention because I do believe that this categorization cannot exist without making certain non-neutral claims about adult-child sexual relationships. Categories regarding juvenile sexuality in film and pedophilia already exist and allow for a listing of these films without making claims as to whether child abuse is correctly considered an LGBT relationship. Thank you for considering this and please accept my apologies if I have come across as less than dispassionate. No matter what the conclusion, please know that as I have made the issue known to the broader community I will not myself be involved in the issue any longer. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest nominating it for discussion at CFD. If you have twinkle it can do this quite easily and automatically. It seems the issue is the scope of the category, which is fair to bring to CFD to discuss. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing template categories due to missing template documentation -

Some templates, e.g., {{BLP self-published}}, are missing documentation and hence categorization. I wanted to add the missing category, but would not be comfortable filling in the rest of the documentation. I would like to indicate that the documentation is a stub, but could not find such a 'doc-stub'. Perhaps I should make an admin request?

I found that I could use {{no documentation}}
Dpleibovitz (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Why are templates categorized in their documentation? Dpleibovitz (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of articles

According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages we should put articles in the lowest category in hierarchy possible. I mean: "if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." That's why IMHO article like Hidden & Dangerous should be put only in Category:2k Czech games and not in parent category Category:Video games developed in the Czech Republic (like here was done: [2]). I would be glad for any comments concerning this situation. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's generally true but there are exceptions. 1st, if the sub-category is non-diffusing, then you can keep the article in the parent as well. American women novelists is a good example of a non-diffusing category. There are also all-inclusive categories, where the parent contains directly all of the children, like Category:Presidents of the United States. In this case, I'm not sure what the best solution is - I would look at other video game categories to see if the video-games-by-company cats are normally diffusing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:DUPCAT, those exceptional categories should be identified with templates like {{All included}} or {{Distinguished subcategory}}; AFAICS none of the Category:Video games by country show these and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is silent as well. In the absence of specific advice to the contrary, I think there's no reason not to apply the principle mentioned above (WP:MOSCAT#Categorizing pages). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with editor Special:Contributions/Atlas-maker

This editor keeps removing article with the title "Port of city in England" from the category Category:Ports and harbours of England by city on the basis of some text left on the category page some time ago. Their edits completely defeat the point of the category.

eg [3] [4] [5]

They will not listen to me, do not seem to understand the idea that categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and claim that there is some 'consensus' for what they are doing.Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I have already opened a discussion at Category_talk:Ports_and_harbours_of_England_by_city but the professor didn't seem inclined to participate so I carried on and removed the articles which don't fit the categorisation criteria from the category. I think it probably best to continue the discussion on the category talk page, as thats where it was started. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are ignoring the basic guidelines of categorisation, as well as reverting my attempts to replace the current nonsensical advice [6] , by claiming consensus when there is none. Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of poor categorisation choices [7] removed Richborough from a port category on the basis that Richborough no longer a port -despite the article clearly stating that Richborough was an important natural harbour - ie ignoring historicity.Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best place to hold this discussion, I would have thought, but the protagonist seems reluctant to engage on the category talk page, so I'll respond here and redirect the discussion from there to here. As a relatively new editor, you may well be under the impression that some categories are not mutually exclusive. But some are. For instance, category:Ports and harbours of Cornwall is mutually exclusive from category:Ports and harbours of Cumbria.

So then the argument comes down to whether any other category could be mutually exclusive from Category:Ports and harbours of England by city. You obviously believe not. I disagree. Your argument seems to be that the category name itself means that any port within a city can be added. I disagree for a few reasons.

There is a guidance note on the category to indicate it's purpose. It agrees with me (but you know that already). It has been there since the category was created. Wikipedia:Categorisation#Creating_category_pages supports the view that the guidance note clarifies what articles should be included in the category
There is a separate category tree of 'city' related port category. It is the category:Port cities and towns in England tree. All the city related categories are listed below that
I think the category is poorly named, which hasn't helped during this disagreement. But if you look at the equivalent category for counties Category:Ports_and_harbours_of_England_by_county you'll notice that it doesn't have any ports in it. Instead it has a series of child categories Category:Ports and harbours of Cheshire etc etc. So if you were going to apply the same treatment to the city category, it wouldn't contain any ports. Instead it would contain a series of child categories such as category:Port of Southampton, category:Port of London, etc.

So if you want to take this category for that purpose, I'd be ok with that. It's better than arguing. Personally I can't see the point in it, but c'est la vie.

I'll just create a more appropriately named new category for the rump of ports and take the current guidance from this one onto the new one. category:Ports and harbours of metropolitan counties might be appropriate. So we can in essence swap the functionality. But I would want to get wider agreement before changing it around. Atlas-maker (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]