Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

Active discussions
WikiProject Categories  
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


American JewsEdit

Category:American Jews says articles should be moved down into its sub-categories, but apparently has ~2800 articles in it (directly).

The first article I looked at, Charles L. Aarons, is for a judge, so I looked under Category:American Jews by occupation for Category:Jewish American judges or Category:Jewish American jurists, which don't exist. I'm considering creating the former (maybe as a sub-cat of Category:Jewish American attorneys?) and moving that article and others (including Ruth Bader Ginsburg) to it.

Am I on the right track?

As far as how to do it, I'm thinking using Petscan or the like to find the intersections and then HotCat to move them, if that's possible.

(For those whose hair on the back of their neck just stood up, I feel you – lists like this have been problematic over our history.   This is not that. Just trying to diffuse an existing category.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlanM1: before creating occupational categories for American Jews (or other ethnicities in other countries), I would advise you to read a get a good understanding of guidelines WP:EGRS and WP:OCEGRS. Very often in the past, similar unworthy intersections of Jews by occupation have been created and then deleted at WP:CfD, because they did not represent a field in which Jewishness was defining. In the case of American judges and jurists, at first sight it seems hard to argue that Jewish jurists should be treated or considered differently from other jurists, which would seem in fact very unfair. For living people, even stricter WP:BLPCAT policy is also enforced. Categories are not lists and there is no reason to create ineligible subcategories for the only purpose of diffusion. There are much larger categories, such as Category:Living people with 989,188 pages.
On the topic of diffusion however, the first thing to do may be to check if some articles in the root category are not already in a child category. This PetScan query tells me that there are currently 269 articles in Category:American Jews which are already in a child of Category:American Jews by occupation, and 213 are also in a child of Category:Jewish-American families. Place Clichy (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Thanks. I'm having trouble understanding field in which Jewishness was defining in relation to the existing Category:American Jews by occupation sub-cats. Or are some of those OSE? In theory, I don't see how most of the sub-cats of Category:American Jews by occupation exist because the subject article should be treated or considered differently. Perhaps more specifically, what would be the difference in rationale between the existing Category:Jewish American attorneys and my proposed sub-cat of it Category:Jewish American judges (ignoring, I hope, common stereotypes about Jewish lawyers).
I don't really get the concept of WP:GHETTO, having read it a couple of times, since it doesn't explain the metaphor.
As to the BLP policies, I'm not looking to apply categories to subjects that are not already in Category:American Jews – just trying to follow the blue-box "this is a container" instructions at the top.
Is this the right place to do this, or should I be at WP:AFCRC? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the leads (important, defining characteristics, right?) of some of the articles, other potential missing categories (with examples):

Again, as I write this, the hair on the back of my neck ... but these articles already exist and are identified and categorized – just trying to be consistent with the apparent intent of the existing categories. I added a pointer at WT:WikiProject Judaism#Sub-categorization of American Jews. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly I do not see any suggested category here that would be acceptable. I would advise you to search the archives at WP:Categories for discussion, as many similar categories have been deleted in the past as trivial intersections, while others have been judged acceptable and kept. Notably, categories for Jewish mathematicians have been consistently judges not to pass the criteria of WP:OCEGRS, for instance in this discussion. Businesspeople, film producers, pornographers categories etc. were also deleted, so there is a pretty strong consensus that not every category is worth creating just because there exists someone who is or was, at the same time, an American, a mathematician and a Jew. A contrario, an example of an eligible and useful category is Category:Jewish comedians, because the field of Jewish humor and it's links with Jewish identity and culture have been the topic of much coverage, in academic research and otherwise.
To illustrate your question about WP:GHETTO: if someone is in a category for female prime ministers (which is a legitimate category because the feminization of political personnel is a topic without any doubt), then this person should not be removed from the parent category with all the other prime ministers just because she is female. It would be unfair, discriminatory and counter-productive in terms of navigation. This is an exception to the more general practice at WP:SUBCAT that articles should in principle be in the more precise category only and not there parents Replace female by Jewish (or any ethnic label) and prime minister by any occupation and you get the idea. Place Clichy (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Thanks again for helping me understand. So, if I understand correctly, to exist, the intersection category should be the subject of (or possible subject of) its own article because the concept is notable in Wikipedia terms, and that GHETTO is about "fragmentation" into too many small branches/leaves that have only one or two member articles (though I think this could be solved with a better UI than having to manually expand and follow all the branches)? I'll read some of the CFDs.
Do I understand correctly that you agree with removing the ~500 articles you mentioned above from Category:American Jews that are also in one of the occupation and other subcats? Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Other ethnicity/occupation intersectionsEdit

XX people of YY descentEdit

Any general guidance on who belongs in the type of category which lists "XX people of YY descent", such as for example, these:

and when to use them? The use case here is Augusto Pinochet, which includes all three categories but says only this about origins:

He was the son and namesake of Augusto Pinochet Vera (1891–1944), a descendant of an 18th-century French Breton immigrant from Lamballe,[30] and Avelina Ugarte Martínez (1895–1986), a woman whose family had been in Chile since the 17th century.[31][32]

Is an immigrant from the 1700s enough to include Pinochet in the Breton category? What determines if someone is "of YY descent"; do we go back centuries? And what about the fact that both "Breton" and "French" are included, is this an ethnicity/geographic area distinction, so they are both allowed? Otherwise, Brittany is located in France, so maybe only the more specific one should be included?

But besides the specific Pinochet case, I'm interested in what the general guidelines are for specifying a "descent" category; someone born in, say, 1950, with one immigrant ancestor from 1700, is between 8 and 10 generations removed, so possibly only 1/1000 th of the blood of their ancestor. Or is some other factor at play? Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are no general guidelines. They are frequently created and frequently nominated for deletion with varying results.--User:Namiba 21:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The obvious consideration is whether in the article its suggested that the descent is significant in some way which affects the notability of the person - which it usually isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, all; this is helpful. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

...of Indochinese descent?Edit

Guy Van Sam has been described in a 1960 Lebanese newspaper as having a Lebanese mother and an "Indochinese" (Indochinois) father. Now, not only is there no category for French people of Indochinese descent, there are no categories at all of people of "Indochinese" descent, despite French Indochina having been a territorial entity. Is the term "Indochinese" too ambiguous to add a descent category to Van Sam? Nehme1499 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Described once in a 1960 newspaper does not seem to be a defining characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per guideline WP:CATDEF. There is therefore no need to add this non-defining characteristic to a category on Van Sam's article, especially since WP:BLPCAT policy applies. Place Clichy (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Prior affiliationsEdit

I have a question regarding a few categories such as Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca. The city of Cluj-Napoca has been part of Romania for the past century, but belonged to Austria-Hungary before that.

Some of the people in this category were born in Romania and participated in politics in Romania. Others were born in Austria-Hungary, served as politicians in Hungary and never knew the city would one day join Romania.

Anyway, my question pertains to a user who keeps adding Category:Hungarian politicians. I understand the logic, but I also seem to recall that such situations demand only the present nationality of a place, and cannot account for all past border changes. It’d be like placing Category:Politicians from Galway (city) under Category:British politicians, or Category:Politicians from Kyiv under Category:Soviet politicians.

What do others think? Is this spelled out by any policy? @Rathfelder: @Oculi: @Marcocapelle:Biruitorul Talk 15:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Biruitorul: there is no policy that I know of but parenting the entire Cluj-Napoca category into a Hungarian tree does not make sense. The individual articles of the category may well be added to a Hungarian politicians category if applicable, but not the category as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Its very messy. Does language help? Would people in Cluj have spoken Romanian? Described themselves as Romanian? Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians are not the same as Hungarian politicians. Could the category be divided? Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No, Hungarians from Cluj did not normally speak Romanian before World War I, and saw themselves as Hungarian or, perhaps, Transylvanian. Is there precedent for a split for other cities that have changed hands? — Biruitorul Talk 16:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I havent seen cities split often, but I can see why you cant have Austro-Hungarian politicians from Klausenburg and Romanian politicians from Cluj. Have a look at Kaliningrad, which has Category:People from Kaliningrad and Category:People from Königsberg. Rathfelder (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    • True, but that’s a special case of a city that was entirely destroyed and replaced by not only a new state but also a new people. Much more continuity in Transylvania. The few Romanians who lived in places like Cluj, Oradea and Târgu Mureș tended to be members of the elite, some of whom participated in politics both before and after 1918. Emil Isac, for example. — Biruitorul Talk 17:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It does not make sense to place all politicians from Cluj-Napoca in Category:Hungarian politicians by default. It does make sense however to place them in a Romanian politicians category, because whatever the era they lived in, people from Cluj-Napoca (or its former incarnations of Kolozsvár/Klausenburg) belong to the history of the extant state of Romania. Also note that technically Cluj has been in Romania for 103 years (starting in 1918), more than twice the time it belonged to Austria-Hungary (1867-1918), although it was part of Hungary before that, among other masters in its rich history (the Ottoman Empire, Transylvania, Roman Dacia, the Austrian Empire etc.). To solve the issue at hand, people from Cluj that were active in a former Hungarian state may be placed individually in an appropriate category such as Category:People from the Kingdom of Hungary or Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would just like to add my point of view on this, whether the current state is added to the categories of the politicians-from-x categories is probably best decided on a case by case basis. I would have problems with people like Giuseppe Garibaldi, an individual born in Nice who supported the unification of Nice with Italy, being included in the category "Politicians from Nice" and then being linked to "French Politicians", for example. Former states, however, should definitely not be linked to the "politicians from x" articles. It leads to all kinds of absurdities. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Finally I came to know this discussion exist, but @Biruitorul: accused of acting contrary consensus, despite the discussion started not long ago and not even closed...nice and fine...Zoltán Illés, and Kinga Gál are not past century, but present-day politicians, e.g. similar instances may be elsewhere, I have to add, that was my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC))
  • Having conpletely reviewed the discussion I agree mostly with @Place Clichy:'s outline, though not necesarily on the whole - althouth that date is correcly 1920, the Ottoman Empire did not held the city, etc. and despite it belongs over a century to Romania, have been part of Hungarian states/Lands of the Hungarian Crown for 920 years -, if we have a category for politicans from a city, then it should not be attached to any nationality, hence as well the category of Romanian/Serbian/Slovak etc. politicians should be removed from there, and individual tagging by other categories could present national affiliation, shall be in any time period. This would solve the confusion, since my examples also show, people with different (or later acquired nationality) could born in that city.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC))
People from... is ambiguous, as it does not explicitly or only refer to people born in a city. If someone is born in a city but has no defining link to it, I believe that the current consensus is not to add them to the category for people from this city. Garibaldi was involved in French politics too actually. Of course a category for Politicians from Foo City should be added to the nearest national category for the country where Foo City is located, there is a defining link between a city and the country it is in. In most cases the best solution is not to create many intersection categories for politicians by city, or for other occupations, unless there is a very strong and specific reason for this intersection. Place Clichy (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose the creation of categories like Category:Romanian politicians from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Hungarian politicians from Cluj-Napoca. Btw, the same issue exists at Category:Musicians from Cluj-Napoca. 77wonders (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that even thinner intersections of city plus occupation plus ethnicity and/or historical era are a solution to this issue. In fact, placing someone in Category:People from Cluj-Napoca and Category:Hungarian politicians is really sufficient if both categories are applicable. Plus this whole Romanian vs. Hungarian thing is really ambiguous: would we have to understand such a category name as applying to people from the Hungarian national minority, or people linked to the city at a time when it was part of Hungary regardless of their national identification? Place Clichy (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories for Indigenous Peoples in CanadaEdit

Hello! I am new here and so expect that this is likely *not* a new discussion, but I couldn't easily find where the existing discussion thread was.

I am participating in the UBC Honouring Indigenous Writers Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon and noticing that there are significant gaps in categories for writing about Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Of course, there are hundreds of Indigenous Nations within Canada, each with their own specific names (and often variant spellings). At minimum, though, it would be fantastic to have categories for the commonly used collective terms "Indigenous Peoples in Canada," "Métis,"and "Inuit." The category "First Nations" already exists and is used in conjunction with a number of other kinds of category descriptors (such as First Nations writer). However, this is inconsistent. For example, there is no category for First Nations author or literary critic.

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliawrites (talkcontribs) 21:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Juliawrites: The main category is at Category:Indigenous peoples in Canada, which seems to have lots of content. If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the way things are organized there, you may either start the changes yourself (see WP:Be bold) or suggest in this discussions what to improve. For instance, if you see some inconsistency or mistakes on how the terms Indigenous peoples and First Nations are used, you are welcome to report it, or fix it.
However the categorization of articles can sometimes be tricky. I would suggest to consider 2 frequent issues for which editing guidelines are helpful:
  1. Per guideline WP:SEPARATE, categories for individual people (i.e. biographical articles) should be kept separate from topic categories. They can often be a sub-category of the topic category though. This can be tricky when the name of the main topic includes the word people(s). For instance, among Category:First Nations, all biographical articles should be somewhere in child Category:First Nations people, and this category and its children should only have biographical articles in them.
  2. Per guideline WP:OCEGRS about non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, not every category of people by occupation should be balanced by equivalent categories for every ethnic identification in the world. When these intersections are notable in their own right, which is undoubtedly the case for Fist Nations writers, then the category may be created. However, I am far from sure that literary critics stemming from First Nations are recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.
Feel free to ask any question in this discussion, or start editing. Place Clichy (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming inconsistency for alumni/faculty/peopleEdit

There is some inconsistency with how lists and categories are named for alumni/faculty/people associated to educational institutions. See this discussion. — MarkH21talk 06:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I remember going through this discussion before, but not where or when - perhaps someone here can provide a link to prior discussion? The "lists" project page is not really the best place for a discussion of category names, especially one which has been gone over thoroughly not too long ago (as far as I can remember!) PamD 16:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Lists of mammals by locationEdit

I'm relatively inexperienced with categories. Looking at Category:Lists of mammals, there are a number of lists about specific locations. For example List of mammals of Newfoundland. Should that be kept here, moved to Category:Lists of mammals by location, or moved to Category:Lists of mammals of North America? Note that the last option is three levels down. In Category:Lists of mammals by location there are a mix of country lists and more specific lists. Additionally, I don't know if all the lists by countries should be categorized into both Category:Lists of mammals by continent and Category:Lists of mammals by location? And then there are also the similar category trees for other groups of animals in Category:Lists of animals by location, so I suppose the organization should be similar. It all seems wrong but I don't know the best practice. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-ProtestantismEdit

See this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#Category:Anti-Catholicism_and_Category:Anti-Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on the naming of Category:Faculty by university or college and its subcategoriesEdit

Please see Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for change to categorization of drag performersEdit

There is a discussion about the categorization of drag performers going on at the LGBT WikiProject. It could really benefit from the participation of editors from this project who have a good command of categories. Please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Categorization of drag performers. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you help? Could use some feedback at the discussion. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Articles by quality" categoriesEdit

Hi all. Not sure whether this is the right place to bring this up, but hopefully someone here can guide me to the right place if it's not. The talk page templates which are used by WikiProjects for assessing article quality dump pages into thousands of different categories, such as Category:B-Class Foo articles, Category:Start-Class Foo articles etc etc etc. Among this impressive tree are things like Category:Category-Class Foo articles and Category:Template-Class Foo articles. Problem is, these categories aren't for articles. Pages, yes - articles, no. And the same holds true for assessment categories for Book, Redirect, Portal, etc., "articles". I realise that it's an enormous job, but shouldn't all those categories reflect that they are for pages rather than articles? Is some sort of global re-naming required? Grutness...wha? 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you give examples of Category:Category-Class Foo articles and Category:Template-Class Foo articles? Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Check the contents of Category:Category-Class articles and Category:Template-Class articles for a few thousand examples... Grutness...wha? 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It's set by the |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter in the individual WikiProject banner templates. So, if a banner has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo articles, category talk pages bearing that banner will be placed in Category-Class Foo articles; but if it has |ASSESSMENT_CAT=Foo pages, you'll get Category-Class Foo pages. I don't think that it's worth worrying about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
OK - thanks. Grutness...wha? 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Heirs apparentEdit

The subcategories of Category:Heirs apparent are mainly populated with people who have become a monarch after they were a heir apparent, i.e. there is a large amount of overlap with the monarchs categories. Only the articles in the top Category:Heirs apparent about people who are current heirs apparent and the subcat Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded‎ are not part of the overlap. Should we add a header in every subcategory "this is meant for heirs apparent who never acceded" or should we rename every subcategory to "... who never acceded"? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing it in this way makes a lot of sense in general, but perhaps an exception is in order for cases where being heir apparent is associated with a specific title (e.g. Prince of Wales and Dauphin). Furius (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What is a tracking category?Edit

I've been doing some work on categorizing and templating categories. Most of the labels I get, but I can't seem to find a clear explanation of when a category should be considered a tracking category. What are the criteria for tracking category status? Tamwin (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Template:Tracking category help? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Not really? "This is a tracking category. It is used to build and maintain lists of pages—primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance. It is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme." That's all well and good, but... Every category is used to build and maintain lists of pages. That's the whole point of having a category. Every maintenance category (in the sense of {{Maintenance category}}) is not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme. When is a maintenance category also a tracking category? When isn't a maintenance category a tracking category? I'm very confused. Tamwin (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tamwin: Hello.
A maintenance category is simply a grouping of maintenance-type pages. It functions like most categories. See Category:Wikipedia policies for example. Use of this category is primarily to help editors find some particular policy they need to refer to, or perhaps to help when categorizing some policy to the correct subcategory. And, as I believe you may already suspect, a tracking category is a type of maintenance category.
My understanding of tracking categories are those created for the purpose of identifying pages that contains some specific problem: lack of sourcing, deprecated parameters, etc. See example Category:Pages using BLP sources with unknown parameters. An editor who is interested in fixing this error, wherever it may occur, could work off this list and fix them.
A possible grey area is the parent categories of tracking categories. For example, Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters contains subcategories which are all tracking categories, but the Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters itself is not a tracking category.
I think maybe the key phrase in the description "primarily for the sake of the lists themselves and their use in article and category maintenance" is not very clear if one doesn't already have some understanding of the distinction.
Is there some particular category you are aware that seems to be an edge case or somehow not clear if it's a tracking category or not? --DB1729 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I've actually came here for a similar thing. Currently we are placing a lot (most? all?) of the sub-categories in Category:Maintenance categories also in Category:Tracking categories, which leads to the latter having 19,288 categories. There is really no reason to lump everything into the tracking category tree. If a category is a maintenance category, it should only be in that category and if a category is a non-maintenance category which tracks something, then it should be placed in the tracking category, but a category shouldn't be in both. Gonnym (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Prioritizing search resultsEdit

 
Screenshot demonstrating the issue.

I propose we add {{Maintenance category}}, {{Hidden category}}, {{Tracking category}}, {{Category class}} and {{Template category}} to MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templates with something like 25% priority. This would cause categories with these templates to display significantly lower, likely below all relevant reader facing categories. It will still be easy to search for the categories, they just won't be the things that are shown to our readers when typing something like "Category:W", "Category:A", "Category:T", "Category:S" or "Category:C" in the search bar. If no one objects I plan on making an edit request for this change in a week or so. --Trialpears (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears: looking at this briefly I don't see a problem with it. Also, interesting that we do this type of thing at all, I had no idea there was such a feature. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Elli It's quite an obscure feature, but it can be useful. I've added a picture showing the issue. As you can see a lot of the search results are maintenance categories that aren't of interest to our readers. This issue also occur if you search for something more sensible, I tested "Tennis", "Train" and "Sweden" and all of them gave various internal maintenance categories of different types very high in the result. I don't think something not being a big issue should stand in the way of improvements. It will still be easy to search for internal categories, but you may have to write a few more letters. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Trialpears: I should clarify - I support the changes you/re proposing, the "I don't see a problem" was referring to your changes, not the status quo. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
A week has passed and I've made MediaWiki talk:Cirrussearch-boost-templates#Protected edit request on 20 May 2021. --Trialpears (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:People from Foo CityEdit

I would be grateful for input from other users at User talk:Rathfelder#People from Foo. Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate categoriesEdit

Recently I ran into the situation where, on a page with an unsorted category declaration, an editor added a duplicate category declaration, also adding the correct sorting key. It had no effect. I then needed to remove the unsorted declaration to fix the problem.

Obviously we don't want duplicate categories, but it can and does happen. In such a case, wouldn't it be better if the new sortkey was honored, rather than ignored?

Part of the reason I bring this up, it was recently confirmed to me, for some specific types of sorting problems, it is indeed necessary to add a duplicate category to fix it. --DB1729 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If a page has code to place it into the same category twice (whether that be directly, as in [[Category:Foo]] or indirectly, such as by the use of a template) and they have different sort keys (either explicitly, or by using a default), the sortkey of whichever category declaration occurs last overrides all of the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood — usually new categories are placed below the existing ones — it makes sense. Thank you! --DB1729 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Highwaymen by nationEdit

At present Category:Highwaymen has several sub-categories (Category:French highwaymen, Category:Irish highwaymen, etc). Individual highwayman articles are assigned to the sub-categories based on the country in which the subject was active, rather than their nationality - for example, Claude Duval, born in France but active in England, is in "English highwaymen" rather than "French highwaymen". I believe that this is potentially confusing, and would suggest one of two possible changes:

  1. Categorize highwaymen by their nationality. In this case, Duval would move to "French highwaymen", James MacLaine to "Irish highwaymen", etc. This is my preferred option.
  2. Rename the categories to Category:Highwaymen in England, Category:Highwaymen in Ireland, etc. This will preserve the current categorization while removing the confusion.

Any opinions would be welcome. Tevildo (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've recategorized the relevant articles by the nationality of the subject. Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Chart creating companies in chart categoriesEdit

Hi, need some third-party opinions about a very minor disagreement between me and User:Eurohunter. They have removed a few chart producting companies from the national chart categories, which seems prima facie incorrect (or highly unhelpful), and is made worse because e.g. Ultratop is by this edit completely removed from all charts- or even music-related categories. The same happened with e.g. Dutch Charts[1], the Italian versionand the Official Charts Company[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Official_Charts_Company&type=revision&diff=1021427230&oldid=1012843425 (perhaps others as well).

It seems to me that including the company that creates the national charts, in a category for national charts, is a logical, helpful thing, and that the "but it isn't actually a chart" reason is a too literal interpretation of the category: no one will be confused by seeing the chart creating company in the category, but people will be seriously hampered in finding the article if it isn't included in the category. (On an unrelated note, an additional category named something like "record chart creating companies" would probably be a good idea, we now have nothing grouping these clearly related articles across countries). Fram (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • You forgot to mention that I have told you to create redirects from chart names then categorise them. It's really transparent. It's the same like in case of studio album and songs from this album. So you will not categorise albums in categries for songs. It's obvious same as in case of charts and companies. Eurohunter (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No, it's hardly transparent, it's fooling the readers in the hope that they will click on the redirect on the category page to find the chart company (and of course, if someone changes the redirect into an article, it again removes the link). No, you will indeed normally not categorise albums as songs, but all "song" categories at least start with a "see also" for the albums categories. Plus, they are also otherwise in the same category tree, via the artist. Here, you have simply removed them from the category tree. Categories in general are filled with stuff which aren't a subset, an example of the category title, but closely related to it, and not better off in a nearby other category (like in your album vs. songs example, where the choice is obvious and logical). I see no benefit in your change for these companies. Fram (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Islamic scholars or Muslim scholars of IslamEdit

There is a lot of confusion in category names between these two. Islamc scholar is a term which usually refers to Islamic scholars in the traditional sense, see - Ulama. Muslim scholars of Islam may refer to Muslims who have studied Islam as an academic subject in an academic course designed for study by both Muslims and non-Muslims. The category mostly refers to Ulama. It should be made clear on the category page if it refers to both Islamic scholars and Muslim scholars of Islam. If it refers mostly to Islamic scholars then renaming should be considered and those who are not Islamic scholars should be deleted and placed in a seperate category or a list. The same is true for it's subcategories. There are similar issues with many of the categories which use either of these terms. It is making it very difficult to look up Isamic scholars in the sense of Ulama through category searches and be sure the results are correct and not misleading. The same is true when looking up academic scholars who have studied secular courses. Amirah talk 21:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Categories".