Template talk:Uncategorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Uncategorized has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents 1 Question 2 template format 3 TfD debate 4 Please add category sort key 5 Don't put this tag on sorted stubs! 6 Place on the talk page 7 SIMPLE version created 8 Minor edit needed 9 Documentation tweak 10 Interwikis 11 Similar templates 12 Wording 13 Slight niggle 14 Proposed Edit 15 Proposing alternate version for Proded and Afded articles 16 Categories linked to this template 17 A small change to prevent mis-understanding 18 Help in dispute about tag 19 interwiki link 20 Request sub-category change 21 See also 22 Examples needed 23 Protected edit request

[edit] Question

• Is this template needed? If it is to have a category listing uncategorized articles, there already is Special:Uncategorizedpages. If it is hoping that the next random reader will do the categorization, that just seems kind of lazy. older≠wiser 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've found it useful, although I've also found the wording misleading. There are other similar article improvement templates, such as {{wikify}} and {{cleanup-copyedit}}. And, like those, this template appears to be aimed just as much at the original author as they are at the next editor to happen along. I don't think that that is a reason to not have this template. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • I also find it useful, especially when I do not have the time to search for the right category to put the article in myself. However, I do think that it needs to be copyedited a bit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• It seems kind of disingenuous to suggest that people won't be able to find an article if it's not categorized. I thought the way most people found pages on a Wiki was via either title search, or wikilinks. Certainly they can find it; that's not an argument for categorization. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:51, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had some trouble with the wording as well. I've added this tag to articles which were patently not of good quality. I've also discovered that, unlike (say) {{wikify}}, the template gives no clear indication to the novice editor of how to perform categorization. The result is that novice editors add markup that isn't categorization, but that simply looks like it. (See the history of Port Admiral for example.) I've modified the template to address both your concerns and mine. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

[edit] template format

It looks odd to have this template "sticking out" to the side under some of the others (like wikify, cleanup, gcheck, etc.) so I've changed the format to use <div> similarly. --Darkwind 20:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. See here for the discussion. -Splash 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please add category sort key

This template is protected. It needs a sort key added to the category link, so

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]]

needs to change to

[[Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

– Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't put this tag on sorted stubs!

Could an admin please insert some language into the template description to the effect that this template should not be used on stub articles that already have a specialized stub template? Melchoir 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Grouse 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Lenoxus 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC) I am now neutral on the question and have used it to form this proposal. Lenoxus " * " 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Place on the talk page

This template is only useful to editors (and then only to editors who care about categories). If it is to appear I think, it is far better that it appears on the talk page, as unlike template:unreferenced and template:NPOV etc, it does not inform the reader of anything they need to know.

What I mean by this is if a new reader of Wikipedia arrives at the page after doing an internet search, then to have pointed out to that reader that the page does not cite references, or that it may have a bias, helps them realise that the page might not be as accurate as it could be. But the information in this template does not inform that reader of any information which that reader will want to know, and not knowing what a category is, will possibly be confused by it. For such a person it must be like reading a Microsoft error message, I think Wikipedia should be more friendly than that, and by placing the template on the talk page any editor who intends to edit the page should see it, so it will still inform the target audience that who ever put it there would like the page placed into a category.

I used to make the same mistake by placing wikipedia:footnote in the Note section, until someone pointed out that although of interest to editors it was not pertinent information for people who read a page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPLE version created

Becuase regular users cannot edit this page, this link will come in handy on the next edit:

simple:Template:Uncat --Slgrandson 14:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit needed

As discussed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, the code

<includeonly>[[Category:Category needed|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

should be changed to

<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Category needed|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}</includeonly>

so that the template can be used on example pages without putting the example page itself into Category:Category needed. Kickaha Ota 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done--Commander Keane 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation tweak

I recommend modifying the usage on the template page, to indicate that this template can be used both standalone {{uncat}} and with the full {{uncat|<month> <year>}} format, though the latter is preferred. --Elonka 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikis

Hi,

Are we supposed to add interlanguage wikis to template pages, I'd like to add one but this page is protected. Thanks. --Vanka5 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar templates

How is this different to {{nocat}} and {{nocats}}? Wouldn't all these templates be better replaced by an automatic feature in the category software that lists all uncategorised pages? Or does this exist already, in which case how do these templates differ? Sorry, if these questions are stupid, it is not obvious to me! Nossac 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, we actually like questions around here! Actually there's no duplication -- the {{nocat}} and {{nocats}} templates are just redirects to the main template here {{Uncategorized}}. Personally, I use the redirect of {{uncat}}, simply because that's easiest for me to type. And yes, an automatic feature would be a good idea, which we've been discussing. Feel free to weigh in! --Elonka 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

The wording is kind of confusing. Shouldn't it say "this xxx should belong in one or more categories" because the way it is now it sounds as if it already does belong in a category. T REX_speak 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood; have now amended it. Hope the result is an improvement! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight niggle

Part of the template is "should belong in one or more '''[[Wikipedia:Category|categories]]'''. Please [[Wikipedia:Categorization|categorize]] it", but since Wikipedia:Category is just a redirect to Wikipedia:Categorization anyway, you just get two differant links to the same article (not to mention that if this template is used on a redirect page, it gets listed on Special:DoubleRedirects). Could someone take a look at this? ShakingSpirit^talk 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit

There are too many changes here to mention. I hope it's satisfactory. -- PatrickFisher 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• If no-one else comments here after a day or so, I guess your version could be tested to see if that produces any response! Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Zsinj^Talk 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing alternate version for Proded and Afded articles

Hi. People involved in the cleanup of uncategorized articles are always faced with the problem of articles which are currently under AfD or under Prod. It seems a waste of time to categorize them but then other editors doing cleanup will keep viewing these pages. Is there an elegant solution by which we could automatically have the template categorize differently that are in the deletion categories? Pascal.Tesson 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories linked to this template

Is it really necessary fdor this template to put things into both Cat:Uncategorized and Cat:Category needed (or both Uncategorized and Uncategorised since month), since one is a subcat of the other? it seems like a doubling up of categories somewhere along the track. Grutness...wha? 22:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this complaint. It is stupid to have two redundant categories, and it clutters up the bottom of articles. I request that one or the other category be removed from the template.--Srleffler 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't say which category to remove. That issue needs to be resolved before any change is made... and thus you might want to take this up on WP:CFD instead. --CBD 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized exists primarily for bot-related purposes. Many articles are listed in numerous categories, so the claim that the presence of two category names "clutters up the bottom of articles" doesn't make much sense to me. —David Levy 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this should go through CfD, first, if anything. I can make a nomination for you, if you like, though I do get the impression you know what you want better than I do. Removing {{editprotected}} for the time being, until consensus is achieved. If you need any help with that nomination, just let me know, and I can have that done ASAP. Luna Santin 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A small change to prevent mis-understanding

The template currently says:

Please remove this tag after categorizing.

I think it should be changed to:

Please remove this tag after categorizing, but not before.

Eli Falk 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Eli Falk 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help in dispute about tag

An article Hizb_ut-Tahrir is already listed under multiple categories. However, an editor insists to have uncategorized tag because the category he wanted to have is not there. I think that it might makes the article disputed however does not justify having Uncategorized tag because article is under multiple categories already. There is some edit war going on this issue. Hence I thought we take some outside views. Please tell what is your take on it? --- ALM 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If the matter is between you and that other editor, try Wikipedia:Third opinion. This template is used when the article is not categorized, it should not be used for content dispute. -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is number of editors involved. I am just trying to make things work there. Thanks for your answer. It will help if few more reply regarding this. Thanks for giving me link to Wikipedia:Third opinion, I have never seen it before. --- ALM 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The category he wants to add is in harmony with his agenda to categorise this radical organisation as a terrorist organisation. I'm sure you will understand the difference between being radical or extreme (which in itself is a POV) from being a terrorist. He has attempted many times to insert this accusation without proper reference, and now he is trying to do so by adding a category related to terrorism. Aaliyah Stevens 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki link

Please add th:แม่แบบ:ต้องการหมวดหมู่ for interwiki link. Thanks ----Jutiphan | Talk - 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request sub-category change

Could someone please change the category on this template from Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates to the subcategory Category:Category maintenance templates where other category-related templates are grouped? e.g. {{Popcat}}, {{Uncategorizedcat}}. Thx. Dl2000 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

{{editprotected}} Please remove {{PotentialVanity}} from see also as it is deprecated. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples needed

So you'll have to excuse me for writing in a less professional tone of voice than usual, but I've just been thrown through the loop for the last several minutes because I had no idea the template is so smart, it knows it's a template. I kept thinking, "but where's the one for articles?" Please, please, please, please, please, modify the page to show us some examples ("on an article/category/image, it looks like this.") I thank you for your attention to this matter, and warn you that I feel like hitting something because I'm such a wikigeek for caring about this. -- Lenoxus " * " 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put the note "It detects the namespace and adjusts the wording accordingly" - Harryboyles 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a little better, but... why not show... examples...? We already see at least one no matter what, right? If it's just the work, I understand; that can wait. Lenoxus " * " 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit request

Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Uncategorized, please replace Category:Uncategorized by Category:Uncategorized pages in this template. [[Category:Uncategorized from...]] should not be changed. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)