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 Support proposed change to Category section of the Layout Guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:06, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Not too long ago, I was reviewing a Good article nomination, and I seen that one or more categories were missing from the article. The article I was reviewing did have categories, but not all that it could have had. I was going to bring it up as an objection, but another user pointed out to me that the Layout Guide currently states that articles are not required to have more than one category. I, as I'm sure many others, have always tried to include as many proper categories into articles as possible. For example, if an article could have Category:Individuals of unidentified species, Category:Males, and Category:Unidentified individuals, I would include them all. According to the LG, however, an article does not need to have all those categories; it could get by with only Category:Males or any one of the others.

The Category section of the Layout Guide currently reads:

I propose to change the Layout Guide to read:

This would officially make it so that all categories that are proper in a certain article must be placed in that article.

Support[]

1. As nominator.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 23:14, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
2. Makes sense. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 23:16, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
3. Per common sense. MasterFred^(Whatever) 01:04, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
4. Honestly, I'd like to see someone try to argue against putting all the applicable categories on an article. But just in case someone decides to be a pedantic ass, I suppose we should spell it out. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 02:14, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
5. Wookieepedia. Destroying laziness one policy at a time. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
6. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 02:32, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
7. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 02:33, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
8. Seems like Wookieepedia 101 to me.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 02:53, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
9. And we have become quite exceedingly proficient at doing it. :) -- Riffsyphon1024 02:57, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
10. I like this idea. JangFett ^(Talk) 02:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
11. Per Tope. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 03:03, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
12. Master Jon ^{War Room} Friday, January 6, 2012, 04:35 UTC
13. Eat shit, laziness! Menkooroo 04:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
14. So long as we think of adding ones we see should be there as sofixits. Unless it's blatant, of course. I don't want to see simply "There are categories missing" as an objection. NaruHina ^Talk 09:21, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
15. 1358 ^(Talk) 09:29, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
16. Per Naru. jSarek 09:51, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
17. But see my discussion point below. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 14:00, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
18. ⇈ TK999 14:05, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
19. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 14:53, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
20. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 19:12, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
21. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 19:43, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
22. Per Naru. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:20, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
23. Per Naru. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 15:18, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
24. ToRsO bOy 17:53, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
25. CC7567 ^(talk) 05:49, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
26. Now that I know the the next bullet point cover my concerns. ~Savage 00:20, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose[]

Discussion[]

• I would only suggest that there be flexibility here, and that those reviewing FANs, GANs, and CANs should be as helpful as possible. I know I, for one, don't know all the categories out there. The advice "it's missing categories" should never be given, because it will be followed by "WHICH categories?" Furthermore, articles shouldn't lose their status on the basis that they're missing some categories, we should simply be bold and add them as we see them. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 14:00, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Taral. Perhaps we should retain "should" in the policy wording to cover this? NaruHina ^Talk 14:21, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
• I just thought of something. What about things like Kallil-virus jelly that are undefined? Under the new wording, what's to stop a noob from thinking it's OK to leave categories out for undefined things? I suggest we merge the current policy with the proposed policy. NaruHina ^Talk 14:58, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • In answer to Taral, this proposal has nothing to do with reviews. This CT will only change what the Layout Guide says. When users review an article, there should not be any change really. If a category is missing, it might be worth mentioning "Such and such category(ies) is/are missing." However, in most cases, it would probably be prudent to just fix it in the copy-edit. This CT is not changing any of that. Users are to use common sense. For articles losing their status over not having enough categories, it would be the same for any new CT that changes stuff like that. If something slipped by the reviewing users and you spot it, fix it. I myself have many times fixed up Good articles that were perhaps ready to be nominated to have their status removed. Like I said, the wording is the same as before. Nothing changes with the reviewing process, I only used that as an example of how I came across this in the LG. In answer to Naru's first question: No. I don't believe we should add that in. The word "should" is too ambiguous. If we put the word "should" in there, it changes nothing in the LG. All that would do is reword the LG without changing the meaning. To answer Naru's second question: That jelly article has a category that fits it. If a noob removed it, then I'd suggest you put it right back. All articles, undefined or not, should have a category. If an article does not have a category that fits it, create one. This one obviously has a category, Category:Substances, that fits it. I don't foresee any real problem with that aspect. To sum up that part, if an article doesn't have an applicable category, which is not too often, then I'd say to that user to be initiative and create one.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 17:07, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
    • Given the great conceptual breadth of our top-level categories, at least one should apply to almost any imaginable topic. jSarek 13:02, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
      • Under the proposed wording, there's no LG mandate for at least one category. My concern is not about them taking categories off articles, it's about them omitting them and nominating articles when we want at least one category on it. What I mean by things like jelly are things that are given one-off mentions with absolutely no context at all. What category is that (or should that be)? Category:Things? Category:Undefined? Category:Stuff? We had to wrack our brains in the IRC to think of "Substance" for Kallil-virus jelly, which was selected as the best, least-speculative choice. Simply saying "Be BOLD" and create a category isn't good enough here. NaruHina ^Talk 18:26, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe it will be. As stated above, use some common sense and come up with a category that fits. You keep bringing this up, but I don't see any problems with what you keep saying is a problem. What would be wrong with Category:Jellies? Nothing that I can see.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 18:31, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
          • It runs into problems if someone comes along and decides to split hairs on its use as a category: specifying it be used only for food jelly, for instance. We'd then presumably have another category like "blast jellies," or relegate that to Category:Explosives, and where does Kallil-virus jelly go then? We don't know it was a food. Further, Kallil-virus jelly may have a common noun at the end of it, but it's not as though that's always the case. It probably wasn't the best example either, for that reason. For better ones, see Rak (substance) and Lxetallic which have absolutely nothing by way of context. Any common sense suggestions? Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. Wording in the guide is not an issue of common sense. It's an issue of policy. Currently in the new wording, there's no provision mandating at least one category. We can tell people all we like to add at least one category, but eventually someone can point out that rule's absense and they would be completely correct. It's the inverse case as when we mandated the use of 1stm and 1st on every article: we'd been omitting it on single-source articles for years then someone noticed the MOS had language about it and here we are. What's the harm in "Every article must have at least one category and all applicable categories?" NaruHina ^Talk 23:05, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
• I support the spirit of this CT, but I wonder if the wording should be altered. The proposed change would require that an article in Category:Males also be placed in that cat's parent, Category:Individuals, since that applies as well. Shouldn't we clarify that the article should only go into the more specific categories and not the parents too? ~Savage 21:37, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Your concern is already covered in a subsequent bullet-point in that section of the LG: "Articles placed in categories should not also be placed in that category's master category; for example, articles in Category:Aquatic sentient species should not also be placed in Category:Sentient species." The proposed wording of this CT is not contradicting that, particularly when you take it in conjunction with this subsequent bullet-point. It's simply saying all "applicable" categories must be included. In other words, redundant parent categories do not apply. The sum total of the "Category" section of the LG prevents this from being misinterpreted or abused. As an additional note to those who are still perpetuating discussion on this forum, this CT is eligible for successful closing right now, and I plan on doing so very soon. I'm saying this as a personal courtesy so you're not wondering why your discussions are being interrupted. If you want to continue discussion about possible further changes to our category system, please do so in an additional SH or CT forum once this one is closed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:27, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK. I wasn't aware that the next bullet point covered this, so thanks for clearing it up. ~Savage 00:20, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem. Glad you're satisfied. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:57, January 15, 2012 (UTC)