Misplaced Pages talk:Category names: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:13, 7 June 2009 editWilliam Allen Simpson (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,485 edits →Update administrative categories section: OK← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:17, 14 November 2024 edit undoShellwood (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers404,841 edits Reverted 1 edit by 100.19.141.160 (talk): MisplacedTags: Twinkle Undo
(460 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 7		\|counter = 10
	\|algo = old(28d)		\|algo = old(28d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:~~Naming~~ ~~conventions (categories)~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Category names/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{talk header\|noarchive=no\|search=yes}}
	{\| class="infobox" width="315px"
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	\|-
			{{WikiProject Categories}}
	! align="center" \| ]<br />]
			}}
	----
			{{archives\|
	\|-
	\|
	# ] (Jan 2005 discussion)		# ] (Jan 2005 discussion)
	# ] (April 2005 discussion)		# ] (April 2005 discussion)
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
	#		#
			}}
	#
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

			== ENGVAR ==
	== ] ==

			I don't think we have ever had anything here explicitly referencing ] (see also ]). If I were to add something, it would probably these couple of points:
	The Americans cannot agree to follow the Heritage naming conventions of the rest of the world. There are two current CfR, each pointing to a series of old CfR decisions (the latter calling the most recent previous CfR "anomalous"). There has been surreptitious changing via category redirect contrary to previous consensus, and category duplication and other changes without any CfR at all.

			{{xt2\|The ] apply to each individual category, independent of the way they are connected to other categories. In particular:
	]
			* If a category has strong ] to a particular English-speaking nation, then its name should use that nation's variety of English. This includes each individual ] and ] (for example, compare ] with ]).
	→ Category:American people of Turkish descent
			* ] and ] should use the same variety of English as their respective main articles.

			}}
	]
			] (]) 05:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
	→ Category:Polish-Americans

	*'''Proposed Compromise''' -- rather than debating these case by case, and Cydebot surreptitiously making changes without a CfD (as it did for Jewish-American activists→Jewish American activists), could we develop a comprehensive American guideline?
	*#All multiple word ethnicities in the now standard form: ].
	*#All generic ethnicity parent categories without hyphen: ], ].
	*#All single word national ethnicity nouns without hyphen: ].
	*#Any single word national ethnicity adjectives must have hyphen, even though the parent category and main article have no hyphen: ].
	*:Will folks enforce these in the future without exception? Otherwise, the bickering will continue.<br />--] (]) 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

	*Extended discussion at two more places:
	**]
	**]
	*:--] (]) 04:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Policy status ==

	Apparently, without formal discussion, the header template was and reverted from , always by the same user, and in the final instance with a misleading log entry.

	] are formally '''policy''', but are currently mistakenly listed in ].

	In particular, this policy was formally approved by the bureaucrat on . Category titles are impossible to move, and time consuming to rename. That makes correctly naming categories increasingly important.

	Without objection, I'll restore the correct heading and listing.<br />--] (]) 01:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

	Done. Upon further investigation, it appears the most recent confusion was the result of an ill-advised change to the that conflated all naming conventions. Better to eschew the subcategorization scheme, leaving this in ] together with ]. Does anybody know of other naming conventions that should be similarly treated?<br />--] (]) 10:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Special conventions for lists of items ==

	There are a number of current discussions about the distinctions between singular and plural categories. They seem to be confusing folks.

	*]
	*]

	We've used this ] for a very long time, since , migrated from . After researching the history, I've moved the existing note to the top, as it had become buried in the middle of the section list, and its lack of indentation was out of place. Maybe the more prominent location will help.

	Should we change to add "topics" to the singular, as has happened in several instances over the past few years?<br />--] (]) 15:08, 19 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:
	*]
	**eliminating race categories (leaving ethnicity only)
	*]
	**splitting ethnicity from nationality (leaving nationality only)

	Should the first be successful, we must amend the ] and ] 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.
	:--] (]) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Update administrative categories section ==

	*All administrative categories used on main space, with the exception of stub categories, should be hidden and placed in the ] tree. ''] ]'', 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

	:*I'm not sure that this is an "update".
	:#At ], it currently says:<blockquote>All administrative categories should have "Misplaced Pages" (without a colon) as part of the name, and placed in the Category:Misplaced Pages administration tree.</blockquote>
	:#Obviously, "and placed" is poor grammar. How about "and should be placed"?
	:#Are there any administrative categories that aren't somewhere in the ] tree?
	:#Although hidden categories are relatively new, and are not mentioned in the naming conventions, quite a few are already hidden.
	:#Are there examples that are not hidden that should be hidden?
	:--] (]) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

	There is a discussion of some category names already in the ] tree that do not currently have Misplaced Pages as part of their name:
	;''']
	*]
	*]
	--] (]) 06:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

	:In that case..
	:*All administrative categories used on main space, with the exception of stub categories, should be hidden and be placed in the ] tree.

	:"Should be" distributes, and so does "should" but really any of the three wordings are fine by me. And I am suggesting we update the section, hence use of the word "update". Whether there are any not in the tree I don't know but it seems a reasonable requirement, and worth advising would-be cat creators. There probably are not hidden that should be ISTR I fixed one yesterday. Might be worth scanning for. ''] ]'', 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

	::Disagree with run-on sentences. Splitting it to separate sentences:<blockquote>All administrative categories shall be placed in the ] tree. Each should have "Misplaced Pages" (without a colon) as part of the name; exceptions are granted through ]. Any used in ] should be hidden, with the exception of ].</blockquote>
	::--] (]) 10:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::Actually looking at the "tree" this advise is that great but it's better than nothing. But we are side-tracking into grammar and layout. The substantive points are the removal of the ''need'' for the word "Misplaced Pages" and the suggestion that they ''should'' be hidden. ''] ]'', 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
	::::OK, given that both CfD have closed without "Misplaced Pages", and there is already parallel language about the hidden attribute elsewhere, it seems we have consensus on those points.<br />--] (]) 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	:::Scanning the tree is initially appearing infeasible because ] (for example) is a child of ]. This highlights the problem that categories should be able to be ''members'' or ''sub-cats''. But that isn't for here. ''] ]'', 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
	::::Looks like somebody made that change . Two edits later, the same person , as it wasn't correct without it, but never fixed the older mistake. Reverted, it's not an administrative category, although several subcategories intersect with an administrative subcategory.<br />--21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

	==RfC==
	For those who haven't yet seen the announcement elsewhere, there is an RfC going on about treatment of eponymous categories and their articles, at ]. Please comment there.--] (]) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	== General naming conventions ==
	I quote the first two points on this conventions page (which have been cited at the above RfC):
	#For a pre-existing category, the article of the same or similar name and (rarely, or) on the same topic should be added to that category. When creating an article one should, only if appropriate (especially horizontally), create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic.
	#Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible. Categories should be more or equally as broad as the articles they contain; articles should be more or equally specific as the categories they are in.

			:@] I was going to comment on this. Yes, I agree, but maybe double check with a RfC or VP link? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	As a newcomer to this page, my impression is that (a) these statements are so opaque that it's hard to discern any meaning in them; (b) if anything, they seem to be about category creation and page categorization, not about category naming, so don't belong on this page at all.
			::{{ping\|Piotrus}} The closest that I know so far is {{Section link\|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153\|RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names}}, where there was a 2019 proposal to do the opposite and standardi(s/z)e all of those categories one way or the other. That RFC ended in no consensus because opponents specifically cited WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES to keep the individual sub-categories tied to their respective English-speaking nations. In the two years since I made my original post, the issue of changing this from a commonly '']'' practice to a specific '']'' guideline here has been very low priority for me, but you are still free to start any further RFC/VP discussions. Cheers. ] (]) 02:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] It is not a priority for me either, but I think you can add the text above to the policy, citing consensus here (which can be challenged if anyone cares to disagree, which I think is not likely...). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 02:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Voter education ==
	Can these points be either rewritten so they make sense and so their relevance to the topic of this page is clear, or simply removed?--] (]) 09:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

			Request "Voter education" be added to list of available categories. This could be used to identify a function or activity as well as organizations or individuals that perform the function. ] (]) 17:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	:These are two of the most '''basic principles''' for creating and organizing categories, and should not be removed. Category names reflect category contents, and ''vice versa''. There are many other instances of restriction on the content of categories, as these reflect decisions about appropriately named categories to retain.

			==Discussion at ]==
	:Note that this is essentially '''descriptive''', and is qualified by the more '''prescriptive''' specifications later in the policy page.
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u\|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

			==Discussion at ]==
	:According to the history (that should always be checked before making any substantial modification), these were ''" from ]"'' at the time this policy was originally written, during many months of discussion. The language for the . The language for the . Note that even then, folks were discussing eponymous categories.
			] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 05:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)<!-- ] -->

			== Standardization ==
	:While the language has survived hundreds of edits to this page, and is fairly comprehensive and comprehensible in context, perhaps dividing it into bullets and expanding slightly would help you:
	<code>
	:*When creating an article, always check for an appropriate category.
	::*For a pre-existing category, an article of the same or similar name that concerns the same topic should be added to that category.
	::*Otherwise, create a category of the same or similar name as the (main) article, according to these naming conventions.
	:*Articles should be placed in the most specific categories possible.
	::*Articles should be more specific than (or equal to) their categories.
	::*Categories should be more broad than (or equal to) their contents.
	</code>
	:Does that improve the description sufficiently?

			Shouldn't this cover the general practice that we like standardization in category names? Or is it covered somewhere else? @] <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	:And I'm going to mention here that your ''being bold'' on the policy page today wasn't appreciated. You may have gotten away with ''being bold'' the ] guideline in February (with only '''2 days notice''' on the talk page), but folks take categorization policy pretty seriously here. Changes usually occur here after months of CfD, not hours or days or weeks.<br />--] (]) 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
			* {{ping\|Piotrus}} it is adressed in speedy rename criteria but it would not harm to add it here too. Also adding that we do not ''always'' standardize. ] (]) 05:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:@] Since you are much more knowledgeable about this then I am - could you add this here? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			: I suppose we should first create a draft text and then ask more editors to have a look at it. ] (]) 06:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			::@] Sounds good, please ping me and I'll be happy to comment. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 06:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:17, 14 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category names page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

ENGVAR

I don't think we have ever had anything here explicitly referencing WP:ENGVAR (see also Misplaced Pages talk:Category names/Archive 10#ENGVAR). If I were to add something, it would probably these couple of points:

The national varieties of English guidelines apply to each individual category, independent of the way they are connected to other categories. In particular:
If a category has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, then its name should use that nation's variety of English. This includes each individual subcategory by country and subcategory by nationality (for example, compare Category:Footballers in the United Kingdom with Category:Soccer players in the United States).

Eponymous categories and topic categories should use the same variety of English as their respective main articles.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11 I was going to comment on this. Yes, I agree, but maybe double check with a RfC or VP link? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The closest that I know so far is Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153 § RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names, where there was a 2019 proposal to do the opposite and standardi(s/z)e all of those categories one way or the other. That RFC ended in no consensus because opponents specifically cited WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES to keep the individual sub-categories tied to their respective English-speaking nations. In the two years since I made my original post, the issue of changing this from a commonly de facto practice to a specific de jure guideline here has been very low priority for me, but you are still free to start any further RFC/VP discussions. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11 It is not a priority for me either, but I think you can add the text above to the policy, citing consensus here (which can be challenged if anyone cares to disagree, which I think is not likely...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Voter education

Request "Voter education" be added to list of available categories. This could be used to identify a function or activity as well as organizations or individuals that perform the function. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 18 § Category:WikiProject X members

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 18 § Category:WikiProject X members. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Category:Fair use images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Standardization

Shouldn't this cover the general practice that we like standardization in category names? Or is it covered somewhere else? @Marcocapelle _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus: it is adressed in speedy rename criteria but it would not harm to add it here too. Also adding that we do not always standardize. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle Since you are much more knowledgeable about this then I am - could you add this here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we should first create a draft text and then ask more editors to have a look at it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  @Marcocapelle Sounds good, please ping me and I'll be happy to comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:

WikiProject Categories pages