Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

See also: WT:CAT and WT:CFD

Dependent territories

An editor has been actively pursuing against the presence of dependent territories on Wikipedia. A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Macau. Please share your comments to what has happened. 113.52.112.27 (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I and @Marcocapelle have patiently explained to you that your handling of dependent territories is incorrect. And for the record, this is the same IP who has been blocked for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:185.104.63.112 reported by User:Smasongarrison (Result: Blocked) Mason (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Listify

Quite a few WP:CFD discussions have been closed as listify and delete, these are listed At WP:CFDWM. Who can help making this happen? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also a few that closed as delete, but still exist. For example, the report Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories still has ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Deaths from sequels of suicide attempt, which I sent to CfD at 22:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) and which closed as delete by Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs) at 13:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Redrose64: there is apparently in delay in processing the list on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working and that is really unfortunate because only admins can process these. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Propose: Allow individual category members to be annotated with descriptions or comments

I would like to request an option to allow individual category members to be annotated with descriptions or comments so they give clear context or elaboration for any specific entry. This would not only make it clear for the readers to learn why that page name was assigned to that certain category, but it would also save some categories being considered for deletion. For example, consider Category:Super Bowl MVPs. In this case, it would be better to list the Super Bowls that player's page name ("PAGENAME") received the Super Bowl MVP in parentheses: PAGENAME (#). For example: if PAGENAME was Troy Aikman who was the MVP of Super Bowl XXVII, then it would be like this: Troy Aikman (XXVII). Here, this means that Troy Aikman was the MVP of Super Bowl XXVII.

Abhiramakella (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The category system does not support that. One alternative is to have a stand-alone list article. Because it would be a manually-written article, it could be formatted in any way and include whatever details and links are desired. We have a nice table in Super_Bowl_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#Winners that could be extracted and reformatted (you can already sort it by name if you like). Do we have a category MOS relating to use of a more-detailed/alternately-organized list in the header of a category itself? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of these methods. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If so, then why not have categories as stand-alone lists (Creating a template that combines both category and stand-alone list templates together ({{Category as list}}))? Abhiramakella (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of these methods." There are pros and cons to each method, including technical, philosophical, reader-facing, and editor-related ones. Note that the category-as-list comment was added after this response of mine.) DMacks (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

You are invited to join a discussion about history of CFDS at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about overcategorization

Hey everyone, I couldn't seem to find my answer in what I thought would be the relevant PAGs, so I figured you all would be the best people to ask. I noticed a number of articles in Category:Animation controversies in television that, while I could certainly see their subject being controversial on their face, don't actually mention any sort of controversy or reactions to the subject at any point in the article, neither lead nor body. Would this be an example of overcategorization and thus should be removed from the category? I'm leaning towards removing (just because I think an article should at least mention or allude to the category it's in, not just be plausible that it could be in that category) but wanted to get some guidance here as categorization feels like it can be a contentious topic at times, even without the designation as such. Thanks all! Greenday61892 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If there's no mention of the relevant category in the article, I think removing it *should* be fairly non-controversial. In general, WP:DEFINING says

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining.

which at least implies that something that doesn't merit any mention probably shouldn't be categorized that way. And if there's no sourced statement supporting the implicit claim made by the category, categorizing it as such would potentially run afoul of WP:V as well. If someone later adds the controversy to the article, they can always add the category to the page then (and that would be the best time to do so). Psychastes (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Naming a new cateogory

Skilled categorizers, your input is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shakespeare#Ola_Ince. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

{{Cat topic year}}

FYI Template:Cat topic year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorization by things not mentioned in an article

I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• To be fair the word "professional" above means any level of paid baseball, even in this case A level minors. We have never even agreed that all these levels of playing baseball are notable, even when we were our most generous in granting notability to sportspeople. 18 different teams is just ludicrous. It comes very close to performer by performance level of teams. I am thinking at some point this violates the rule against categorizing performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• The Abbott article is 16 paragraphs plus tables and other things long. It still does not mention Winston-Salem Warthogs or several other teams that he is categorized by. I am not sure why all 18 teams cannot be expected to be mentioned in his article, but if we cannot expect them to be mentioned in the article, I am not sure at all why we should categorize by them.~~~~~
• I think we should limit categories to things that are mentioned in the article. If it is not defining enough to mention in the article I do not think it is defining enough to categorize by.~~~~

John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)