This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Categories page. |
|
Categories | ||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I would like to request an option to allow individual category members to be annotated with descriptions or comments so they give clear context or elaboration for any specific entry. This would not only make it clear for the readers to learn why that page name was assigned to that certain category, but it would also save some categories being considered for deletion. For example, consider
Category:Super Bowl MVPs. In this case, it would be better to list the Super Bowls that player's page name ("PAGENAME
") received the Super Bowl MVP in parentheses: PAGENAME (#)
. For example: if PAGENAME
was
Troy Aikman who was the
MVP of
Super Bowl XXVII, then it would be like this:
Troy Aikman (
XXVII). Here, this means that Troy Aikman was the
MVP of
Super Bowl XXVII.
Abhiramakella ( talk) 17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Category as list}}
))?
Abhiramakella (
talk)
18:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join a discussion about history of CFDS at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#History of instruction changes of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. — andrybak ( talk) 12:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I couldn't seem to find my answer in what I thought would be the relevant PAGs, so I figured you all would be the best people to ask. I noticed a number of articles in Category:Animation controversies in television that, while I could certainly see their subject being controversial on their face, don't actually mention any sort of controversy or reactions to the subject at any point in the article, neither lead nor body. Would this be an example of overcategorization and thus should be removed from the category? I'm leaning towards removing (just because I think an article should at least mention or allude to the category it's in, not just be plausible that it could be in that category) but wanted to get some guidance here as categorization feels like it can be a contentious topic at times, even without the designation as such. Thanks all! Greenday61892 ( talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining.
Skilled categorizers, your input is welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shakespeare#Ola_Ince. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
FYI Template:Cat topic year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert ( talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert ( talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)