Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Restarting this project

I've overhauled this page a bit to try and refocus this project, which was becoming a bit of a backwater. I don't think this project is the place to discuss categorization policy. That should happen at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The place to renaming or deleting categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The place to discuss the policies or process for deleting or renaming categories is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion.

So what does that leave? I think this page should be the place for people to record the categorization projects they are undertaking. The purpose of recording what you are doing is two-fold. One reason is to solicit help with the project, and the second is to alert others about what you are doing. The alert can stimulate conversation about the merits of the project. People may be able to suggest a better taxonomy or naming scheme for the categories. If the project is ill-conceived, there is the chance to discuss it before many changes are made. -- Samuel Wantman 08:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Language Families Category

I've noticed that articles in the Language Families Category are labled inconsistently, especially in regards to sub-categories. For example, Mon-Khmer languages is a sub-category of Austro-Asiatic languages, but some Mon-Khmer languages are categorized in the parent Austro-Asiatic category while others are properly placed in the sub-category. Would this be one of the exceptions to the guidelines where it would be acceptable to list an article in both the parent category and in the sub-category? I am planning to start better organizing the whole Language Family Category so I would appreciate some input.--WilliamThweatt 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi WP Category workers. I have an idea and was hoping someone could give me some guidance on whther its a good one, whether its permitted in WP, and if so, tipe on how to do it. I have recently begun helping my children write some articles and stubs on WP. I would like to create a notation for articles that denotes them (or flags them if you prefer) as having been written by a "young author." I see WP as a fantastic way to educate my children in significant ways and hope perhaps the movement will catch on. In connection with the effort, I would like to have a special page for the "young authors project" etc. I would define young authors in some very generic way so as to protect identities. What do you think? Do you have any tips on how to do this or an "administrator" that would be particularly knowledgeable about how to do this? Thanks in advance for your help. --Lawnmowerman 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of a young authors WikiProject, but there is a project to create a basic version of Wikipedia geared to younger readers and users of English as a second language. I forget the name, I'm sure someone else will point you in the right direction. As for making a category, I would not advise it. It would most likely get nominated for deletion as claiming the authorship of articles is considered contrary to the ideals of a Wiki and not a good way to categorize articles. You might be able to create Category:Wikipedia articles started by young authors and only add the TALK pages of articles by its incorporation into a template you'd create, perhpas {{young author}}. If these are created as part of a young authors project they would probably be found acceptable. -- Samuel Wantman 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The basic version refered to is probably "simple". SeventyThree(Talk) 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Image categorization

Is it worthwhile to create an image description page here, on the English Wikipedia, for an image that exists at the Commons, for the purpose of categorizing it? For example, Image:Su-map.png is a Commons image, so it doesn't show up in Category:Sudan maps. Should I create an image description page for Su-map.png here to add the image to this category, or is this frowned upon? —Bkell 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Category naming conventions for clothing -- Please help!

Hi, a few of us have been working on articles about clothing/fashion and their history and we'd like to make a sensible set of top-level categories under Category:Clothing. We've come up with the following proposal and we'd appreciate your input very much

  1. Category:History of clothing
  2. Category:Clothing by nationality
  3. Category:Clothing by ethnicity
  4. Category:Clothing by culture
  5. Category:Clothing by geography
  6. Category:Clothing by use
  7. Category:Clothing by person
  8. Category:Design and construction of clothing

One point that may catch your eye is the distinction between nationality, ethnicity and culture. Presently, we're thinking of using these terms as they're defined in Wikipedia, roughly speaking, peoples defined by political boundaries, genetic heritage and common viewpoint, respectively. For example, "Polish clothing" (which would include clothing worn by Poles at all points in their history) would seem to belong under Category:Clothing by ethnicity, since Poland was politically Swedish, Russian and German at various points in its history. Similarly, "Clothing in ancient Rome" would seem to belong under Category:Clothing by nationality and, I dunno, "Goth subculture clothing" would belong under Category:Clothing by culture, since it covers people linked by a common culture, not genetically or politically.

The other categories are relatively straightforward. Category:Clothing by geography covers subjects such as "clothing worn in cold climates" or "clothing worn at high altitudes". Category:Clothing by use covers clothing by occupation and occasion, such as "fireman clothing", or "maternity wear", or "wedding clothing". Category:Clothing by person groups articles by the person wearing it, e.g., "women's clothing", "men's clothing", "children's clothing", etc. Finally, Category:Design and construction of clothing covers the technical details of how clothing is made and designed.

We've tried to make these top-level categories as independent of each other as possible, e.g., so that the time can be specified independently of the ethnicity, independently of the occupation, independently of the person, etc. We've also tried to be as consistent with Wikipedia definitions as possible. Please let us know if you like these categories and if you have any suggestions -- thanks muchly! :) WillowW 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with having those categories independent of each other is that some articles would be in too many similar categories. Like if you had an article on some kind of traditional Chinese clothing then it would go in a category under Chinese nationality, Chinese ethnicity and Chinese culture, which are all very similar. The way I would handle that (and the way most other categories seem to handle it) is to just use nationality. So if you had a piece of clothing that is basically Russian by ethnicity and culture, but was worn in Poland as well, you would just put it under the nationality it was most associated with (in this case Russian). In a pinch, you could put it under Polish and Russian, if it associated with both countries a lot.
Also, I would combine your geography and person categories into your use category (maybe call it Category:Clothing by type instead?) and then you could have as sub-categories of that Category:Cold-weather clothing and Category:Children's clothing. Recury 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, Recury, that's a good insight. I totally agree that we should put the clothing in its most typical category, as in the "Russian" example you cite. Just to clarify, our idea had been that clothing would be categorized in only one of the three: nationality, ethnicity and culture, in that order. In other words, if it could be sorted under nationality, it would go only there; if not, then it would go under ethnicity; and if that wasn't sensible, then under culture. I kind of think we should not put all three under "nationality" since there are cultures that are not associated with political boundaries or ethnic groups; for example, a typical reader might not look for "goth clothing" or "trekkie clothing" under "Clothing by nationality". The ethnicity and nationality categories could be merged, but it seemed strange to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's own definitions; and several well-defined ethnic groups have never had their own nation in the modern political sense, or perhaps spill over several nations. I'm no expert, not at all, but some examples might be the gypsies, the Inuit, the Kurds, Native Americans such as the Lakota, the Australian indigenous peoples and (some might argue) the Tibetans. What would you recommend for categorizing clothing for such peoples?

I'm also a little confused how the two categories Category:Cold-weather clothing and Category:Children's clothing should be grouped under the same heading? We had thought of Category:Clothing by type, too, but the wording seemed a little too vague to guide the general reader. But maybe we could combine the geography category with Category:Clothing by use?

Anyway, thanks for your insights and keep up the good work! :) WillowW 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that clothing is usually catogorized under culture so the "by culture" category should suffice. BTW, I believe that Goth and Trekkie are considered sub-cultures and I suppose they could be lumped with the full-fledged cultures, but I think I'd rather see them in their own category. --JeffW 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean Willow. Yes, you could use all three, nationality, ethnicity and culture like that, but I think if you did it that way you might end up with too many categories and too few articles in each one. Given your examples I think I agree with Jeff about using culture to organize them. And yeah, you don't want to get the Goths mixed up with the Goths like he says.
The Category:Clothing by type is just a suggestion (and if anyone has any other ideas, lets hear it; I have similar issues with my categories too) but my thinking is that "by type" would deal with more practical differences in clothing (thick clothes for cold weather, smaller clothes for little kids) where like "by culture/nationality" would deal with more abstract, esoteric differences (although cultures will obviously make changes for practical reasons as well). Recury 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Culture by city

Category talk:Culture by city. – Alensha 寫 词 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly

I wanted to create a category "Monopoly" in economics, but it turns out that Category:Monopoly is devoted to the board game. I created Category:Monopoly (economics) but this seems silly to me. The board game category should be renamed to Category:Monopoly (game), so Category:Monopoly can be used for the economic concept. JQ 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You can try to rename them at Categories for discussion and if everyone agrees then they will rename them for you. I'm with you though, the actual concept should get the regular name and the board game named after it should have the parentheses. If you didn't want to go through all of that (and it's no guarantee the change would pass anyway), you could rename yours to Category:Monopolies or something. Recury 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Integration

I'm working with a few individuals to cleanup duplicate content & merge weak stubs on Wikipedia. This involves tagging categories for review, and going over articles to modify as needed. Categories themselves may also be subject to this methodology. Input is welcome.

WP:ʃ

Cwolfsheep 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

request for second opinion

Hi. I recently created Category:Slums with the header category for slums, favelas and shanty towns. I am looking for opinions on two issues.

  1. It seems that the slum article differentiates it with shanty town. Fair enough but my idea was to have a single category for urban areas faced with extreme poverty (and that wouldn't be too good as a category title). Is it worth the trouble renaming the cat to Slums and shanty towns?
  2. Should I be worried about creating a category in which inclusion might be controversial? I can understand someone being unhappy when they realize that they are, according to Wikipedia, living in a slum.

Thanks for the comments. Pascal.Tesson 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing duplicates from Visitor attractions in England by locality

I have discovered numerous duplicate entries under this category. For example, the sub-sub-category Category:Historic houses in East Sussex has 11 entries, 8 of which are duplicated under its parent Category:Visitor_attractions_in_East_Sussex. I am going to delete the duplicates from the parents, but mention it here to see if anyone has any advice.

Is there a tool that finds duplicated entries under a category tree? It seems like a useful tool to have. MortimerCat 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Your feedback is requested on this page, which should serve as a description both of CFD precedent and of kinds of categories we generally find undesirable. (Radiant) 12:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I will probably create a userbox for WP Category members Sunday afternoon, if I do not hear that one already exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Film Categorization Dept

This is to announce that the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization department has been created and welcomes any comments and participation from members of this project. Hoverfish Talk 09:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)