Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Categories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gbawden (talk | contribs) at 10:11, 29 March 2016 (cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:11, 29 March 2016 by Gbawden (talk | contribs) (cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut

WT:CATP

proposal for Category:Enzyme disambiguation pages

Misplaced Pages:Categorization does not seem to have instructions on how to propose a new category, for discussion or for a more experienced editor to simply create. I suggest that said article should be modified to mention it.

I have noticed many disambiguation articles with multiple entries that are chemicals, usually enzymes, for example, HPSE. There is a Category:Science disambiguation pages‎, which seems awfully broad for this and contains only 4 articles, one of which is an enzyme disambiguation page, DHQD. I would like to propose a subcategory of Category:Science disambiguation pages: Category:Chemical disambiguation pages with its subCategory:Enzyme disambiguation pages, but I want a discussion first. If this is to be done, I think templates should be made, or existing templates modified, e.g. {{Disambiguation|chem}} and {{Disambiguation|enzyme}}.

Also note that DHQD has been set up as a member of Category:Enzyme set index pages. This is a possible path for HPSE and many other pages, but I am not sure if it is the best path. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I'm not keen on adding more and more reader-side categories to dab pages. We could end up with a dab page of 20 items (a person, a place, a ship, a book...) being in 20 categories; for a page that readers do not want to navigate to that's a lot of editor effort, watchlist noise etc (plus blurring the distinction with articles and making it harder to keep dab pages out of article categories). If a particular wikiproject has an interest in a particular dab page (because some/all of the dab entries are within its scope) then they can tag its talk page and hence put it in a category such as Category:Disambig-Class chemicals articles. Note: If there was a consensus here to create such a category you'd still need to have a discussion at Template talk:Disambiguation to get that template changed.

I'm also not keen on things which really should be dabs being rebadged as SIAs. An example where a SIA may make sense is Nitrogen oxide, but DHQD really should be (just) a dab page - e.g. no-one is going to talk about DHQD meaning both the alkaloid and the enzyme so any inlinks to that page should be fixed (and the next thing to turn up abbreviated DHQD may be in a totally different field). DexDor 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Lighting and light sources

I think that it makes little sense that category:lighting is in category:light sources. Lighting as a service and candlepower are quite rightly in cat:lighting, but are not light sources for instance. I think that both categories should be direct subcategories of category:light and that a very large wodge of both categories' entries should be moved to category:types of lamp and that made a subcategory of both of them. SpinningSpark 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I will start this work shortly. I will also unwatch this page so ping me if there are any replies. SpinningSpark 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:21st-century cricketers

I tried to add Category:21st-century cricketers to Category:21st-century Indian cricketers but I see the following message:

What should I do? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Well even if the category had not previously been deleted, you should not be adding categories that do not exist, the category you want to add should be created first. The discussion that decided to delete this category can be found here. So this category should not be recreated without a new discussion first. SpinningSpark 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I have just nominated the Indian sub-cat at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 8. I note that you did not create it, and the creator of the category has been blocked. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category tree for Ethnic Greek people vs. Greek people

Hello,

I notice that a user has recently created a separate category tree for Ethnic Greek people. This user (@Johnpacklambert:) is now blocked indefinitely, maybe for other purposes although it seems relative to BLP categorization. My first reaction would tend against the creation such a category tree, however I'd like to listen here what the opinions are.

I understand that "ethnic" categories are sometimes useful, and I understand the difference between ethnic Greek and Greek (although these terms may each cover very different concepts at different times in history) but I think that:

there are already plenty of categories that are more precise and better cover most relevant situations : Ottoman Greeks, Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, People of medieval Greece, Greek Cypriot people, Pontic Greeks, People of Greek descent etc.
the concepts in the title of these categories are not defining enough to be, ever, properly populated. (e.g. there are 2 Ethnic Greek singers but Georges Moustaki is not one of them, and Rigas Feraios is one of the 2 Ethnic Greek journalists but Stavros Theodorakis is not)

For these reasons, I think that this new category tree does shows more problems than advantages, and I would tend towards its deletion. However, again, I'd like to listen here what the opinions are. (Also notified Project Greece.) Place Clichy (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I rather agree with Place Clichy. There is scope for differentiating between ethnic Greeks and hellenized people, but frankly, there is little point to it. Then we would have to differentiate between ethnic Greeks who have been acculturated in a different ethnicity, and then hellenized people by origin/ethnicity/etc. and split hairs ad infinitum. In addition, the statement "The category Category:Greek people is for people who are or were nationals of the modern Greece." in the Ethnic Greek people category shows a rather arbitrary limitation of Greek-ness and a narrow definition of nationality/ethnicity to coincide with nation-state borders that I for one am not comfortable with. As Place Clichy points out, there already exists a host of categories for any flavour of "Greekness", we don't have to add more. Constantine ✍ 20:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I was thinking of nominating this new hierarchy for merger or deletion, but most of the sub-categories have now been emptied. Are you abandoning it? – Fayenatic London 19:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a reflection of the fact that the category Greek people is meant for those in some way connected with the modern nation state of Greece, but people insist on putting in Greek categories those who are not so connected, this solves the problem. I have not abandoned it, but keeping it up is a lot of work because some people insist on ignoring how the category tree is designed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The point of this category is to include people who are ethnically Greek but not nationals of Greece. It is to stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories. It is meant to include no nationals of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- But why would we need this as well as the established Category:People of Greek descent? – Fayenatic London 13:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Why do you consider that the Greek people category is restricted to the citizens of the current state of Greece? This seems like a personal interpretation to me, and not the way Misplaced Pages categories work. By strictly applying what you suggets, this would mean that there were no Greek people prior to 1821, or that one of the greatest Greeks of all time, Eleftherios Venizelos, was not himself Greek as he was a Cretan at a time when Crete was still Ottoman. As discussed above, the will to "stop people putting non-Greek nationals in Greek categories" is not worth the creation of a parallel category tree that can never be correctly populated, among other problems. May I have the friendly suggestion to use other categories such as Ancient Greeks, Byzantine people, Greek Cypriot people, People of Greek descent etc. for the purpose you are looking for. @Cplakidas and Fayenatic london: I can see that more Ethnic Greek categories have showed up in the last few days, despite this discussion. I suggest nominating these categories for deletion with a link to this discussion (a process I am not familiar with), for the categories that are not already empty. Place Clichy (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I just found most subcats empty and tagged them for speedy deletion. After that I noticed that in at least one case it was you, Place Clichy, who had emptied them. The standard process is at WP:CFD. Please note for future reference that it is considered "out of process" to empty a category without, before or during a discussion. – Fayenatic London 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved in a friendly discussion with @Johnpacklambert: regarding the same issue with some Albanian related categories, similarly starting with the word "Ethnic". Most of them are empty. I am aware that John had nothing but good intentions of formalizing the categories according to a uniform logic. Anyway, the topic of ethnicity vs nationality in the Balkans is much more complicated. When we talk about Greek, Albanians, Bulgarians we talk about a nation, or conscience, not only ethnicity, and vice versa. Not really connected to the citizenship. The translation "Albanian mathematician" to "mathematician from Albania (Republic of Albania)" may seem right but it is not correct. It may work for Americans, US citizen = National of US, citizen of US, but not for the rest of the nationalities. Saying "...an ethnic Greek..." or "...ethnic Albanian..." can be used inside the articles to give more detailed information about people's origin, not in the very first sentence, infobox, or categories.
As an example, we have an article that states "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an ethnic Albanian mathematician..." - instead of saying "Eshref Ademaj (1940–1994) was an Kosovar Albanian mathematician", or "Kosovar mathematician", or "Albanian mathematician from Kosovo". The word "ethnic" does not fit here. The categories follow the same logic. I don't know any non-ethnic Albanian or non-ethnic Greek btw. You are Albanian or you're not. We also have more specific denominations, as Kosovar Albanians, Venetian Albanians, Ottoman Albanians, etc.
How do we call Carlo Giuseppe Verdi (1785–1867) or Temistocle Solera (1815-1878)? An "ethnic Italian" or "Italian"?--Mondiad (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the points that Mondiad raises. These ethnic X categories need to be deleted as they create more confusion and duplication of categorizations. While we are distinguishing the ethnic Greeks/Albanians from Greek/Albanians that lived in a recognized country, we don't we make such distinctions for the Americans before the United States existed? Why for instance are we not saying that John Adams, Sr. was a British citizen, or an "American ethnic"? Perhaps Johnpacklambert knows the answer: These things would create confusion. So do the ethnic X categories. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There were no Grwek people prior to 1821. The attempts to assign people as part of a natuon that they are not are what need to stop. People who were from Crete when it was part of the Ottoman Empire and people from other places not in Greece should not be classed as Greek. We need precision in applying terms and the general disregard for natuonal boundaries and historical realities advocated here is exactly what we do not need. It invites presentism in categories that ignores the reality of the time and feeds modern ethno-natunalistic attempt to isentify past people in ways they did not think of themselves. At the same time the Greeks and other millets in the Ottoman Empire are clear ethno-religious groups. We need the modifier ethnic just as much here as we would for Jews if in the 1940s they had choisen to name their country Judea instead of Israel. An ethnicGreek born, living, creating music and dying in 19th-century Egypt clearly is Greek in some way but not in the sense of natuonality so he can not be placed in Greek by nationality categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What a silly idea, that there were no Greek people prior to 1821. I think you are still confusing nationality with ethnicity. When we say Greek people, or Albanian people we mean it firstly in the ethnic sense, and then for the nationality. The nations of Greece and Albania were created in 1821 and 1912 respectively, but they were not created out of nothing. Following your logic we ought to tag Leonardo Da Vinci as an ethnic Italian, not as an Italian, because Italy didn't exist at his time. --MorenaReka (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent examples: by JPL's logic, there would be no Italian people prior to 1860, no German people prior to 1871. I recognise that Johnpacklambert's efforts are in good faith, and it is always worth mentioning in the body of an article if, for instance, someone is a Kosovo Albanian vs. just an Albanian, or a Greek from Egypt, or an Armenian American. That said, there are already plenty of categories to mention these nuances, and the word ethnic can be understood in so many wrong ways that it is, frankly, not necessary the way it is used here. These "ethnic" categories are more harmful than useful. Place Clichy (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree and I did see a point in it in the beginning, but the more I thought the more I got convinced that it was a redundant duplication. --MorenaReka (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

People still ignore the fact that without the ethnic cartegories we tag people as Greek by nationality who were part of the Ottoman Empire at a time when Greece was a distinct nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we would save ourselves endless headaches like the debates over how to categorize Nicholas Copernicus if we held to such straight forward cut-off times for German and Italian categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Uncategorized pages

I see that the number of articles in Category:Monthly clean up category (Uncategorized pages) counter keeps growing. Just wondering if anyone here ever tries to tackle it? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Films about women

Doesn't this seem a trifle broad (no pun intended)? The vast majority of films have a female lead character. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably too broad. I think it's probably meant more along the lines of "films with a strong female lead". Although this is a thing in film discourse, it's too interpretive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I raised this previously but nothing came of it. I'm not sure this category is of any real use at the moment. Lugnuts 18:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Looking at current subcats, Films about women include films about couples (Bonnie & Clyde‎, Romeo & Juliet, Jason & Medea), fantasy or otherwise non-human characters (Tinker Bell, Mermaids, Beauty & the Beast, Lilo & Stitch) and also, interestingly, Alien (franchise) films and Kill Bill. Also, it is a subcategory of Biographical films, which puts Alien in biographical films.

By this definition (is there a definition?), too many films are about women for this category to serve any purpose. On the contrary, categories of films about specific topics like feminism, romance, specific historical figures, all-girl education, lesbianism probably make better category topics. BTW where's Category:Films about men? Any proposal for deletion, or major rearrangement, or partial merger into Women in film, gets my vote. On way to do it is to rename the category into Biographical films about women and to remove everything that does not fit this definition. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. I've nominated it for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 25). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CfD backlog

Don't know if it's meaningful to mention it here too but WP:CFD has a backlog of some 150 category discussions to be closed. I left a similar note on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Namespace - category combinations

I've created a matrix showing which combinations of namespace and high level categories should/do not contain pages. For example, there should be no user talk pages below Category:Articles and there should be no articles below Category:Wikipedians.

The matrix still has quite a few "TBD"s (e.g. is it ever appropriate for a disambiguation page or a talk page to be in Category:Articles?) - I'm hoping to fix many of these before the matrix might be moved into Misplaced Pages namespace. Suggestions for other ways the matrix might be improved are welcome. DexDor 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New tool: CatCycle

This may have been around for a while, but I have only just discovered:

CatCycle —http://tools.wmflabs.org/render-tests/catcycle-dev/catcycle.py — to trace cycles in the category structure, or find the relationship between two categories

I had wasted hours trying to figure out why a category tree trawl using WP:AWB had produced some weird anomalies (categories which should never be subcats of the one I started from), but CatCycle solved the problem in under 60 seconds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A big problem with our category structures

Take a look at this use of CatCycle.

It shows how in only 32 steps, Category:Expatriate sportspeople in the Soviet Union is a sub-cat of Category:Scotland ... via Category:George W. Bush and Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities.

My use of CatCycle suggests that this sort of problem is widespread. How can we fix it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed time and time again. The belief that this is a problem is a result of mistakenly thinking the category system is, can be, or should be, a strictly logical hierarchy. It has never been that, and it can't function as that without breaking valuable connections between related topics. It has always instead been a network to group related articles, primarily to aid navigation, and secondarily to classify articles by the categories in which they are placed (not to classify them by what connections those categories in turn have at a far remove). The opposing view would sacrifice fundamental connections at individual steps for the sake of what gets connected through "32 steps". postdlf (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the broad fuzziness, but this is extreme. In this instance, I solved the problem by removing Category:September 11 attacks for Category:Presidency of George W. Bush. Eponymous categories for people are not supposed be used in that way, and there had been some inappropriate categorisation of some broad event categories under the eponcats for recent American presidents. For example, Obama's category had categs for lots of shootings, which didn't belong there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an entertaining and interesting example, but IMHO it is not a problem at all. It would greatly reduce the navigational value of categories if sub-cats could only be made where they contain the same type of thing (person, organisation, work, event...) as the parent category. For instance, it is valuable to link art by country and artists by country. In some cases, sideways-links could be made instead using "see also", but vertical hierarchy links are generally very useful even if they jump into a different type of thing.

The fact that this CatCycle path goes from one military participant to another is an inevitable result of having category hierarchies both for Category:Military units and formations by war and Category:Wars by country. Once we construct both of those, the result is zig-zag category paths like the one in your example. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: I have repeatedly seen that Category:Wars by country causes huge category-spread. There is a simple solution: apply the Category:Wars involving Foo only to the head article (and any country-specific subcats), not the whole war. That way we don't end up with the entire global history of WWII and its aftermath base being categorised under the all the nations which participated in WWII. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good solution. However, it might clash with the goal of avoiding category clutter on articles. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Smallcat discussion

Feel free to join this discussion about whether or not to make the WP:SMALLCAT guideline more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous name: Category:Directors and national subcats

Category:Directors is for directors of creative or artistic productions: films, theatre, television, etc.

This is well-summarised in the categ description: for people who direct stage, television, radio, video, or motion picture productions for entertainment, information, or instruction. They are responsible for creative decisions, such as interpretation of script, choice of guests, set design, sound, special effects, and choreography.

The topical subcats are unambiguously named: Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors. But the head category, and national subcats of Category:Directors by nationality (e.g. Category:French directors) are ambiguous. The unqualified title "director" probably applies most commonly to directors of companies, and the title "director" is widely used for divisional managers in organisations of all types. This ambiguity has already led to Category:Corporate directors being added as a subcat of Category:Directors by genre or type.

I would like to put together a group CFR to rename these categories to something which clarifies their scope without becoming too verbose. With so many categories involved, there are technical advantages to proposing a specific title (or a few options for title), so I would welcome suggestions.

My ideas so far:

artistic directors sounds like a possibility, but we already have Category:Artistic directors. The head article Artistic director explains that the title is for a senior management role in an artistic organisation.
creative directors is also a specific job title, whose meaning varies in difft fields. (see Creative director)
directors of artistic productions avoids a clash with specific job titles, but feels a bit narrow. There is scope for argument over the extent to which television programmes are "artistic".
directors of creative productions avoids the what-is-art pedantry. It may not be ideal for documentary films, but I think there is a reasonable case for including them
directors of creative works also avoids the what-is-art pedantry, and may have a slightly broader scope per Category:Creative works. I am unsure whether that broader scope is desirable.

Using "directors of creative worka" would lead to the following renamings:

Note that all the categs which would be renamed are {{container}} categories (even if not tagged as such). Individual directors would still be categorised under Category:French film directors, Category:Irish theatre directors, Category:American television directors, etc.

Those are more verbose than I would like, but they don't appear too ugly or unwieldy, and they avoid the ambiguity with corporate roles. Any thoughts?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Based on this presentation I agree with 5, directors of creative works, as specified below the numbered list. Thanks.

I doubt these would be {{container}} categories. Rather {{category diffuse}} cats. --P64 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation

I initiated at request for comment at Talk:Rafik Yousef#Request for comment regarding categorisation on the 12th of February but am yet to receive any replied. So input would be most welcome. AusLondonder (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the presentation of categories a page belongs to when the list is humongous

Look at the messy list of categories at the end of Go_(game) and Talk:Go_(game). It would look much better if it were presented in columns, don't you agree? — Tentacles 18:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I see 1 line of categories at the end of Go_(game), but then there are 7 lines of hidden categories. Now, I see 8 lines of categories (not counting the 1 line of hidden categories) at the end of Talk:Go_(game). — Tentacles 18:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested on whether subcategories should be diffusing or non-diffusing (Indian Air Force)

There is a category tree for officers of the Indian Air Force where Category:Indian Air Force officers is the parent category, Category:Indian Air Force air marshals is a subcategory and Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) is a further subcategory of the second. There is currently a mixture in the categorization where some biographies are listed in two or even all three categories, while others are listed in one only. This issue came to my attention when I noticed Vinodtiwari2608 add the parent officer category to two articles in the air marshals subcategory.
I think that in this case the general rule described at WP:SUBCAT should apply, namely that the articles "...should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." I do not see any reason for the subcategories to be treated as non-diffusing (as described at WP:DUPCAT). I will allow Vinodtiwari2608 to explain their reasons for thinking that the subcategories should overlap.
On a related point, because since 1966 the Chief of Air Staff has held a separate rank of Air Chief Marshall, as described here, I think that Category:Indian Air Force air marshals, a new Category:Indian Air Force air chief marshals and Category:Chiefs of Air Staff (India) should all be separate categories under the parent category. Chiefs of Air Staff can be non-diffused into either air marshall or air chief marshall depending on whether they were pre- or post-1966. But all of these should be diffused from the parent "officers" category. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-diffusung categories should be avoided in all/most cases as they complicate categorization. If an editor wants to see a list of all the pages in a category and its subcats then there are tools that can do that. DexDor 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your initiative in starting a discussion on this. I think it would be better to post notifications also on the India and Military History WikiProject talk pages. I concur with you that multiple categories should be avoided as the page becomes cluttered, however, from a naive user point of view -- many visits Misplaced Pages for information sake -- a broader category helps. For example a military enthusiast who is not tech savvy would find it easier to click a category link to see all related content -- all Indian Air Force Officers -- in this case. Since there are only few profiles the reader may easily identify the Air Marshals, remember Air Marshal is just a designation they all are Air Force officer. So I think we can discard Air Marshal category otherwise some may demand creation of categories for each rank like, Flying Officer, Flight Lieutenant,... , Air Vice Marshal, Air Marshal till Air Chief Marshal who is the chief of Indian Air Force. Thanks again for the initiative.Vinod 07:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hang on. There is a clear convention across many military officer categories. General officers (or Air Marshals) are in a separate category under Air Force officers. This is a practice widely used and from what I can see is used correctly here. Air force chiefs of staff also have a convention - Chiefs of Staff of the United States Air Force sits under US Air Force generals for example, which is the case here. I would suggest leaving as is. The issue of pages being in parent and subcategories should be fixed separately. Gbawden (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:

WikiProject Categories pages