It's an Eng-Var thing. I think that the UK version is mire logical but cannot get support for it outside the British Isles. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
It's an Eng-Var thing. I think that the UK version is mire logical but cannot get support for it outside the British Isles. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
== Category for Articles with Wikilink Problems ==
On the community portal page, under the "Fix Wikilinks" heading, there is a list of articles with various problems with links: too many, too few, orphaned pages, etc. But the "more" link below the brief list goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_too_few_wikilinks only. Is there a way to link to a broader category of articles with wikilink problems instead? [[Special:Contributions/184.67.135.194|184.67.135.194]] ([[User talk:184.67.135.194|talk]]) 21:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
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.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles
Hi there!
I believe that we're on the same page about the grammar of emigration and immigration: emigrants are "from" the place they left, and immigrants go "to" the place they're arriving in. This is borne out in article space by titles I've searched. Unfortuately the categories are uniformly backwards:
Here's a catch: "O" appears to be an adjectival demonym, which seems less than desirable, but may pertain to some conflicting desire for consistency in the category tree.
So our entire category tree - all the way back up to Category:Emigrants has, in my view, a problem of grammar. If we reach consensus about correcting the format, we can, and should, apply it uniformly across hundreds and hundreds of categories. Rather than nominate them all en masse at CFD, I've come here for an informal check first.
Therefore, I propose to rename all affected categories from O emigrants to D to the format Emigrants from OO to D.
"OO" represents a conversion from the demonym to the origin country's name in noun form.
It has 3 cats that use British India emigrants to x, and 4 that use British India emigrants or migrants. Non use British Indian. British modifies India, not the people. This is another matter we have not teased out well, how to handle changing entities that use the same name. We have some interesting sub-cats under say Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this using the from OO to D form would make things a lot better and a lot more clear. There may be a few edge cases where we may need to come up with a way to better that the mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to come up with a clear and maybe new name for what people were leaving between the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917 and the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Cats are really not an area of expertise for me, so I tend to follow along with what other editors suggest on cats on pages. My feeble understanding of cats is that cats are redundant when the cat is a sub-cat of another. For example, you wouldn't put both Category:Silent American comedy films and Category:American comedy films, since the former is a subcat of the latter. You would only put the former, since it's more specific. I've been creating a bunch of articles on old political figures in Arizona, and I was tagging them with the Category:Arizona state senators. Another editor began adding Category:Arizona politicians. Since neither is a subcat of the other, I began to do it to save other editors' time. However, recently another editor deleted the politician cat from one of my articles, stating it's redundant. I really don't care one way or the other, just seeking some guidance so I don't cause work for other editors. Thanks. Onel5969TT me21:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not a new editor and have created four categories before now, but I have a question on this one and I wanted to ask to make sure that this one would be correct to make before publishing. I was trying to find examples of artwork that has its own Wikipedia article that depicts the Rosary in it (such as this, this, and this), while trying to improve the page for the Rosary. I had a hard time finding these articles though and it made me think, would a category make this easier? As far as I am aware, categories starting with "Paintings depicting..." do not exist, which is why I wanted to ask here first as to not have the category be nominated for deletion if created. Categories such as "Paintings of..." do exist, but I am hesitant to name the category that, as these paintings do not have the Rosary as the primary focus in them, but they do "depict" them. Any feedback is very much appreciated, thanks! Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the more I think about it, the more confused I get, because here in ENWP we have both Category:Images of paintings and Category:Paintings which has a subcategory Category:Paintings by subject. Oh. Maybe I should think more carefully about whom to ask, before complaining that it's confusing. My friend @Pharos: works at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and might be able to handle it easily. Until he answers the ping, I can provide the general guidance that the main reason for making a new category is that the parental categories are overstuffed, for example getting near the point that they start overflowing to a second page. There are also many other reasons; in Commons I often make a category when at least one of its parents has a dozen pictures or fewer. This includes structural adjustments for making a complex tree structure more uniform, thus less tangled. As for whether our fellow editors will find these pictures more readily with your proposed category. I guess my only answer is what I said, move the images to Commons. Umm, but as for the articles about the paintings, are there really enough such articles that putting them together will more help the searchers than hinder? One of the powers of a category is that, once an editor finds one picture that's approximately right, the category might lead quickly to a bunch including one that suits the purpose precisely. This function is less effectively served by categories that are either too small or too large. Yes, cat wrangling is a complex skill, and now Wikidata is getting into the action of finding the right pictures, which may bring great efficiency but for the moment is bringing more complexity. Oof, I didn't intend to write so much. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why just paintings? A category like this is usually called Category:Foo in art, and rightly so. In general such a category is only worth establishing if you are prepared to do a reasonable amount of work filling it. I'd think you shouldn't bother, on the whole. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Okay @Jim.henderson: after clicking on every result (with a name) from the Wikidata search @Pharos: suggested, plus the three articles I found before, I am left with six total articles that could be placed into this category, being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I feel like there is enough paintings to warrant the creation of the category and would be helpful for those people who have a very similar search of mine and don't want to search through the Wikidata items, plus it has room for expansion.
With all of that being said though, this would be a very specific category to create, and would not be useful to 99% of readers, and reading over every comment up until this point, none have really supported the creation of the category either, so I don't think I will make it. Thank you truly for all of your help, I definitely learned a lot about categories regardless. Wishing you all the best 🙂 Johnson524 (Talk!) 01:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uncategorized Pages is full of Templates
Hi all! The Uncategorized Pages category has been absolutely full of templates for a couple of months now, and it's only getting worse. I'd like to bring this to the group to see if we can come up with a solution. Templates are way harder to categorize since you can't use hotcat, and uncategorized templates are a relatively minor issue compared to uncategorized pages (imo). Is there a way to either remove the uncategorized tag from templates (perhaps creating a separate tag for uncategorized template?) or restructure the category page to exclude templates? Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my ugly handiwork, and there are 8,000 more template pages that lack categories. I have been slowly working my way through this neglected database report, categorizing some templates, moving some to better locations, tagging others, and nominating still others for deletion. If having template pages in the category is a problem, I suggest that {{Uncategorized}} be modified to place them automatically into a new category called something like Category:All uncategorized templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's come to my attention that the footballers' positions categories are quite overpopulated, they range from 15,000+ to 45,000+. Should they be sub-categorised by players' nationalities or clubs? I thought that I would ask here instead of beginning to do sub-categorising and making mistakes. Or are these categories not overpopulated enough - as in, is there a specific limit in which a category is listed as overpopulated? SarahTHunter (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since many people will have several clubs over their careers, & not infrequently multiple nationalities, this would be a life's work. And what would be the point? You will never get them small enough to be "perusable" (say a max of 200). Splitting by century might be easier, still with lots of overlaps, but when categories get this big, it is best imo to just leave them, and most importantly, make sub-cats non-diffusing. Attempts to break up huge categories tend to be abandoned half way through, leaving a proper mess, like Rathfelder's attempts to break down a mere 4,000 Old Etonians. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered this too. When I sieved through working with female freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly and medley swimmers it took almost an entire week to get through them three years ago (they all originally had a few sub-cats, the strokes all had American and Canadian swimmers but no other sub-cat for the Dutch - which the freestyle swimmers had a lot of - the swimmers' categories contained 2,000+ that weren't sub-categorised if I can remember). I felt like I had a slight OCD problem when I saw the large numbers of football positions' categories and I thought "wow, this looks so big!". But anyway, clarifying everyone's comments I think I will leave it as I don't want to make it into a big mess and annoy other users into why it's been fiddled about with. Thank you very much for your advice. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni of “School” or “School alumni”
Hi, I had noticed that there seems to be tons of categories that are “school” alumni, but some are Alumni of “school”. Is there a proper or perferred manner?
