Forum:CT:Subcategorization consistency

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Subcategorization consistency

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: use [[Category:abcxyz| {{PAGENAME}}]]. Grunny (Talk) 07:18, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure you are all sick and tired of this topic, but I think we need to establish, once and for all, a consistent method for marking categories as subcategories. I see four possible solutions, but none of them are "perfect". So I'm asking the community to come to a consensus on which method we should use consistently. Here are the four options I see (vote for one down below):

  1. [[Category:abcxyz]]
    • Pros: Most obvious to average/casual wiki editors. Simple. Uses default sorting (alphabetically, divided by first character) automatically in parent category.
    • Cons: When the parent category contains a large number of articles (200+), it divvies them and the subcategories over multiple pages (See Category:Food as an example. Where's the Category:Rations subcategory?).
  2. [[Category:abcxyz| ]]
    • Pros: Fixes the problem of the first option (sort of). All subcategories are now sorted with a 'space' character at the front, so they are all grouped together on the first parent page.
    • Cons: Even though all of the subcategories are grouped together now, they are not really alphabetically sorted anymore. Instead they appear randomly sorted.
  3. [[Category:abcxyz| {{PAGENAME}}]]
    • Pros: Fixes the problem of the second option. All of the subcategories are grouped and sorted alphabetically on the first parent page.
    • Cons: Not obvious to average/casual wiki editors. Longest to type (most characters).
  4. {{Subcat|abcxyz}}
    • Pros: Shorthand for the third option.
    • Cons: Not obvious to average/casual wiki editors. Can cause problems for 'bots/droids.

Have another option? Disagree with my pros and cons? There is a "discussion" section down below. - Esjs(Talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[[Category:abcxyz]]

[[Category:abcxyz| ]]

[[Category:abcxyz| {{PAGENAME}}]]

  1. FWIW, this option and option 4 have identical effects, so I'll lean toward the one that won't cause problems with bots. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Bot-friendly and the whole "longer to type" point is minor for what it does when it is fixed correctly. Also if this is difficult for minor editors to remember, we'll just have to make the technique more accessible in our Editing pages. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Riffsyphon. MauserComlink 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. The subcat template has always been rather pointless. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Still a little undecided between this option and the subcat one, but in the end, I guess a few more letters aren't too hard to type. Also notable that the same result can be achieved this way {{Subst:Subcat|abcxyz}}, which is slightly shorter. Really though, this is a safeguard. When possible, the best thing to do would be to address the root cause and create new subcategories, reducing the need for this procedure altogether. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Grunny (Talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 22:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. JangFett Talk 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Subcat|abcxyz}}

  1. - Esjs(Talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. It should not be a big deal to have bots target {{subcat|whatever}} as well as [[Category:Whatever]]. Havac 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Having done a lot of recating lately, this one strikes me as the cleanest. --Eyrezer 05:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Use [[Category:Abcxyz| {{PAGENAME}}]] when necessary, otherwise use default formatting

  1. That makes the most sense. Using the coding [[Category:Abcxyz| {{PAGENAME}}]] is necessary when a category has more than 200 pages and some of the subcategories are listed on another page than the first one. But if a category has less than 200 pages, then there's no need to make the coding more complicated and the usual [[Category:Abcxyz]] should be used. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Remeber that over time, more articles are added to categories. And as soon as there are more than 200 articles, you have to completely change everything. It's too difficult to remember and regulate IMO. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

From what I've seen, if there are enough in one letter, it will still overflow to the second page of the category. Thus, I see no benefit to changing anything at all. Unless there is a change to the display mechanism of the category, not the sorting, we will not see all at once anyway. It only displays the first two hundred regardless of if they all start with the same letter (or in the case above, a <code> </code>). A change to the display is a wikia issue, not something that us average users can change. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... I can see that for the articles... but a category with 200+ subcategories?! I suppose it's possible, but it seems extremely unlikely to me. I'm willing to see examples, though, if you can find them. - Esjs(Talk) 04:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Addendum and correction: First, I meant to say that the headings fall in line with the first two hundred articles. In other words, if the articles are only displayed to H, then the subcats are as well. I could be wrong here, but that is what I've seen. Also, the display appears to be limited to a set amount of space, which is only part of the wikia format and beyond the control of the average user. Now, I also think that the average user does not know about {{subcat}}. I didn't even know about it until the SH thread and I've been around a while. Then again, I don't work with categories much. If it can be CSD'd, then fine. Otherwise, I say no change at all and I think that such should definitely be an option. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The second and third options solve that problem by using piping to start the "sortable title" with a space, which places all of the subcategories in front of all initial letters. It's basically the same theory as sorting Coruscant as [[Category:Coruscant locations| ]]—the space puts the article up front as seen here. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • In response to Fiolli: 1) In the example of the articles "only displayed to H", the subcategories are displayed to H when they are using the first option. Options 2-4 all file subcategories under "space" which appears before A (and 0-9 I believe). So basically, with options 2-4, all subcategories a listed through "space". I don't know how many subcategories Wikia allocates per page; I just assumed 200 like the number of articles. Whatever the number, if we have more subcategories than that, then options 2-4 would have a second page saying "space cont'd" (here the word "space" is being used in place of the character). If that's the way Wikia works, then I'd prefer Option 1 myself. But like I said, I just don't see a category having that many subcategories. 2) The reason no change is not an option is because I'm seeing all four options being used! Well, maybe not option 3, but I've definitely seen a fair share of options 1, 2, and 4 being used everywhere. Which one is right? - Esjs(Talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Hence, no change. If all are working and none are wrong, then retroactively standardizing the work is not necessary. A guideline for future use is one thing and I would support that—if I find an option that I like—with phased implementation for the existing categories, but an overhaul of the thousands of categories at once is too much to bite off at once. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying we have to change all categories at once. If you prefer to vote on this as a future guideline, then please do so. But I want the community to come to a consensus on a single method, please. - Esjs(Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I should note that Category:Technology does make extensive use of Option 4 it seems, considering that nearly all of the subcategories are on the first page. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • May I ask why bots have trouble dealing with the subcat template? Is this localised, or do all templates suffer from this? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The question should be directed to Xwing328, who raised the concern about bots in the SH discussion. - Esjs(Talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The category.py script I believe you have used, Soresu, plus a smattering of others like replace.py, expect to find [[Category:something]] on the page. This really comes into play when you try moving a bunch of pages from one category to another. It will move the articles just fine, but categories using Template:Subcat won't be touched. So, really, it's not a huge deal, and I suppose there are workarounds, but I just wanted to make that known. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)