Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should we make sure a false Category has other entries before removing it

[edit]

If I come across a person who lived 1712-1798 and find that they are in Category:19th-century French merchants (which oddly enough does not exist) am I justified in removing it even if it is the only article in that category, or do I have to instead leave it there and file a formal petition to delete the category. Either way this illustrates that we need to come up with much better rules against overly narrow intersection categories, because the uncontroversial edit I outline above should not require such an extensive process to accomplish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove it if it is wrong. Someone else can then file for deletion of a category with no members. Bondegezou (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need both women ambassador and women diplomat categories

[edit]

I noticed armt least for some nationalities we have women ambassador and women diplomats categories. The women ambassador categories are sub-cats of the diplomat category, but some articles are in both categories. I am thinking we either do not need women ambassador categories at all or we really should only have them in cases where we end up with a very large women diplomats category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

categories for historical subdivisions of countries

[edit]

Copied frm User_talk:@Marcocapelle::

Looking at your another decat it came to my mind that some of the places do belong to these due to their strong nin-accidental assaciations, namely capitals of their subdivisions. For example, for category:Suwałki Governorate it is reasonable to contain Suwałki as its sapital, as well as Augustów, Kalvarija, etc., for being capitals of its counties. What do you think? --Altenmann >talk 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Altenmann: having been the capital of a past administrative division is not a defining characteristic of a current city. We do not even have categories for capitals of current administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't ask for a separate category for capitals. I disagree that being a capital is not a defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not focused on recent times and being a capital s just as important for the past as it is for

today.

What is your opinion? --Altenmann >talk 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The question arose because Marcocapelle removes pop.places from these categories like here While this may be reasonable, I guess editors who categorized in this way may have their reasons as well. I will try to find a couple and ping them, asking for their arguments. I dont think it is WP:CANVASSING, because I am not looking for a headcount, but for arguments. --Altenmann >talk 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. My zeal sizzled: I checked a couple of these and they are long gone. And the concerned WPLithuania seems moribund. :-( anyway, @Pofka: @Dr. Blofeld: @Renata3: --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latvia is an interesting example, because smaller municipalities have recently been merged to larger municipalities. Should we categorize the capitals of the past municipalities as past capitals? They are mostly just villages. And if not, where do we draw the line? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean under "categorize the capitals ... as past capitals"? We don't have categories for capitals. Whatever your question means, it does make sense to write that "Niekuriškai was the capital of Niekurių senunija between 1990-2014" in the "History" section. --Altenmann >talk 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional couples

[edit]

Category:Fictional couples is a mess. How much fiction doesn't involve couples? Even restricting it to those who appear in multiple works still seems too broad to me. Thoughts? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a pretty pointless category to me, but off the top of my head I'm not sure exactly what P&G it's in violation of. However, you might suggest that the category should only be used to list articles that name or explicitly refer to fictional couples (e.g. Frankie & Alice), rather than any article that has a couple as an arguably non-primary focus (e.g. Gold Blend couple). DonIago (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are dropouts alumni?

[edit]

The word "alumnus" in English is ambiguous: it is sometimes used to mean people who once attended a school, and sometimes used to mean people who have finished a course of study at a school (that is, graduates, or people who have received a degree). My understanding is that our many alumni categories should only be used for the stricter meaning of graduates, because only that is defining: attending a school but then dropping out or transferring elsewhere is non-defining. User:SammySpartan obviously disagrees, and has been edit-warring to add Category:San Jose State University alumni to Rita Sanchez (who dropped out and later earned multiple degrees from a different school). Opinions, please? I'm asking here rather than starting a discussion on Talk:Rita Sanchez because I think this is a very general issue that we should have some global consistency on. I checked the archives but found only many discussions on what to call the alumni categories, not really touching on who should be listed in them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Dictionary: Someone who studied at a particular school, college, or university. [1]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: A person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university.[2]
Dictionary.com: A graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university, especially a man[3]
The definition is pretty clear that an alumni does not have to be a graduate. I don't see why Wikipedia should have a private definition of the word in this case. SammySpartan (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions you quote are pretty clear to me that there are two distinct meanings: "who has attended OR has graduated"; "graduate OR former student". If these were intended to be a single meaning encompassing both the graduates and the former students, then the graduate parts of these definitions would be redundant and should have been omitted: one cannot be a graduate without attending. Since those parts of the definitions were not omitted, they make sense only as a way of describing a distinction between two different usages of the word "alumnus". Therefore, the question should not be, what is the definition, but rather which of these two meanings we should follow. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen schools list people who attended as alumnus. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment, not all schools offer degrees, so former student makes more sense to me. Some military schools are an example. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FieldMarine. I have always interpreted it as meaning someone attended (so, including dropouts). I don’t see any reason to interpret the term more strictly here.
That said, WP:DEFCAT applies. We should only be applying categorisations if they are defining and I suspect that while I would call Rita Sanchez an alum of San Jose, her status as such seems less likely to be defining. Bondegezou (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link above appears in §See also, but following it lands you at a soft redirect page pointed at mw:Help:Sortable tables. While I could just update the link to point there, IMHO that target page title seems pretty clearly unrelated to this page — I'm more inclined to just remove the link completely. If anyone objects, speak up... FeRDNYC (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FeRDNYC: We have a lot of help links that go to Meta, which did have some pretty good help pages. In recent months, Pppery (talk · contribs) has converted many of these pages on meta: into soft redirects to mw: but unfortunately, the pages on mw: are often not as comprehensive as those on meta: were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context for that process is mw:Season of Docs/2024/Proposal. The Meta documentation pages were almost always unmaintained for years to a decade. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to be fair here even the last Meta version before I soft redirected it was almost entirely about sortable tables and had very little to do with categorization. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace the link with mw:Help:Categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery From a quick skim of mw:Help:Categories, it doesn't seem like there's anything there that isn't already covered better in Wikipedia:Categorization, is there?
I also just noticed that, in addition to the §See also link, there's a second in-body "See also" towards the end of §Sort keys that no longer goes anywhere useful:
  • Use other sort keys beginning with a space (or an asterisk or a plus sign) for any "List of ..." and other pages that should appear after the key article and before the main alphabetical listings, including "Outline of" and "Index of" pages. The same technique is sometimes used to bring particular subcategories to the start of the list.
Sort order of characters before numbers and Latin alphabet (0–9, A–Z) is (partial list):
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 9 : ; < = > ? @ [ \ ] ^ _ ` A Z a z { | } ~ É é —
See also: Meta:Help:Sorting#Sort modes for more information.
There is a §Sort modes at mw:Help:Sortable tables, but it still reads as awfully table-centric. FeRDNYC (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the see also to MediaWiki, you're right that it isn't really needed, and there's a local page Help:Category which is already linked earlier so it can just go. The sort modes thing isn't my fault - the Meta content before the move was itself very specific to tables. No opinion on whether than should be bypassed or removed. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery For the record, in my personal view "fault" doesn't come into it. (Blame is boring,anyway.) Your work cleaning up our vast messes of disorganized behind-the-scenes documentation is greatly appreciated! In cases where it causes other documentation to become outdated or in need of revision, then we just do that; it doesn't make your efforts any less useful or valued. This discussion is merely my attempt at pitching in with cleaning up the docs here.
As far as the actual links in question, it may simply be (and it's increasingly starting to appear this way) that there is no good, generalized documentation on the sorting routines that are apparently shared between table and category sorting (...and who knows what other contexts?). If they've only ever been documented in the context of table sorting, then that's the best we've got unless and until someone pitches in further to change things. Even so, it's useful to put our heads together and figure out where things stand. So this was still productive. Thanks! FeRDNYC (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]