Forum:Category categories

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 15:32, September 11, 2011 by Lyrithya (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Category categories
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1166 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It's funny, doing things a certain way just because they've always been done that way may seem quite sensible, but sometimes the reasons just don't actually apply anymore, you know? You ask yourself, 'why am I actually doing this?' and the answer is just... 'because.'


Anyway, I'm just here to let y'all know that {{subcat}} is pretty pointless these days, so you don't need to use it on categories anymore. The mediawiki changed, or maybe an extension that was installed, but either way, at some point since the template was created in 2005, the software changed. Now it does what the template was intended to do (separate subcategories from the other stuff in a category), but better (software has fancy tree dropdown thingies and everything), rendering the template pretty pointless now.

So... yeah, all of you categorising categories, just use [[Category:Category name]], please, instead of {{Subcat|Category name}}. HotCat already adds categories directly, so if you use that, don't worry about it. And as for the existing ones, that's being taken care of right now. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 05:04, 2 June 2011

Actually, it does make a difference. Although media wiki does list categories separately, it does not, by default, place the categories "in front" of the rest of the content. With {{subcat}}, all the sub-cats are shown on the first page, whereas with [[Category:Category name]], the cats are in alphabetical order with the pages and files, so all the cats don't appear on the first page of a category's content. --Mn-z 21:49, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
The categories aren't with the rest of the content at all anymore. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 22:35, 2 June 2011
Yes, I am aware of that. Categories didn't appear with the rest of the content when I joined. The problem is that sub-cats don't always appear on the first page of a category's contents without the use of {{subcat}}. This occurs when the category contains over 200 items, resulting in the category's content being spread over multiple pages. --Mn-z 22:43, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
That's what the table of contents is for, and if you really want a category tree, we do have a nice extension called 'category tree' installed now that does exactly that. But if you really want to get on the case of the large categories, well... frankly, we should not have trunk categories with that much stuff in them in the first place; they kind of defeat the purpose of having a category at all, really. Too much stuff. Too vague. They have their uses if you want to pretend at a namespace or something, but that's about it. Using silly workarounds only encourages such nonsense, though, even if they did initially did serve a useful purpose, instead of helping to get people to actually diffuse the masses into more descriptive subcategories. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 23:16, 2 June 2011
I really don't see any issue with the subcat work-around as it is. It puts the sub-cats where I, and everyone else who edits categories, is used to seeing them. I don't want to go through 18 pages on category:People to see a listing of it's subcats. I also don't want to go into a Category:Everything to get a listing of the sub-cats of category:People.
Regarding the fact that we shouldn't have trunk categories, that is not a good reason to mess up the categories more than they already are. It would make the large categories even more overwhelmingly chaotic. Additionally, I tried to move some content into smaller sub-cats before, and the general consensus has been against moving articles exclusively to narrow categories. This results in some very large categories, such as Category:Mammal Images CA.
Also, from your edit history, it appears you are running your bot way too fast. I believe bots shouldn't go any faster than 1 edit per 5 seconds, or 12 edits per minute (wikipedia's standard for bot operation during periods of low web traffic, it's even slower during periods of peak web traffic). Your bot was running up to 30 edits per minute. Running it that fast may be too much of a drain on the server's resources. --Mn-z 01:31, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
I've run Fnoodle at what even I consider to be ridiculous numbers of queries and/or edits per minute, and I haven't gotten a single complaint so far from Wikia or otherwise. Just sayin'.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 01:43 Jun 03, 2011
Does that mean I haz permission to run MnbvcxzBot as fast as it will go? Although for some reason, it generally doesn't go much above 10-12 edits/minute even when I set the delay to time to zero. Is there is a way to make it faster? --Mn-z 01:49, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
Huh... MediaWiki has [1] set by default and according to this wiki's rights normal users are rate limited (see noratelimit for sysops). Maybe they just have it set really high. Mister Victim (talk) 05:33, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
Bots aren't affected by that; that's sort of the point. You probably just need a better internet connection, or something. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 10:03, 3 June 2011
Yes, well. You smell like cabbage. Mister Victim (talk) 16:52, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Also, teh. --Mn-z 01:40, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the thing - regardless of why it was originally created, look at what has happened in part as a result of this subcat over the past six years - we have categories that are thousands of pages deep. Yes, that's an extreme example, but it also rather effectively should demonstrate my point - overly large categories not only interfere with going through the subcategories without the subcat, but they also make going through the pages themselves pretty pointless in general. Save for maintenance things and whatnot, if a normal category gets up in pages, it loses navigability, plain and simple.

So what we need to do is diffuse the categories, not argue over a pointless template. One of the bots should have a proper list of overly large categories soon, put them in a nice category with a template I made up for the occasion, and if folks could help out with the actual diffusion, it would be very helpful. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 10:03, 3 June 2011

You know, it's not because large categories exist and you don't like them that the subcategories should be dispersed across multiple pages. Some categories contain a huge shitload of files or a shitload of pages and some may even have a shitload subcategories. All of that is thrown in a blender and alphabetized afterwards. If say a category contains a lot of UnNewses, any subcategory starting with V, W, X, Y and Z will be hidden when initially looking at the category. There already exists a perfectly good solution for this problem, {{subcat}}. Now, sure, if all of the big categories were smaller, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. I encourage you to try and organize all the huge categories into smaller ones, but that doesn't mean the solution that was already provided for subcategories should be eliminated during the weeks, months, years, decades, millennia, etc. while you're fixing the categories. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:43, 3 June 2011
That wasn't the solution. That was what caused the problem in the first place. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 19:45, 3 June 2011
Here is the issue people don't want to put articles exclusively in narrow categories. I tried that before with images, and it was unpopular with other uses. Therefore, I created "catch all" categories, some of which have thousands of images by intention. Also, I could point out examples where I narrowly catted an article, and someone else wanted to broad-cat it. For example, see Forum:Categories, UnNews when Aleister and I had a disagreement whether UnNews:Woman gives birth to weasel should be in Category:Pregnancy. Wikipedia has huge categories, and I can't say that each and every cat should always have less 201 combined subcats, pages, and files.
I'd also like to point out that {{subcat}} is not causing the supposed "problem". There aren't that many users that will move articles around because a category is overwhelmingly large, and making large categories slightly more annoying will not change that. --Mn-z 21:05, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
And have you noticed something about the catch-all categories? They don't have subcategories. I'm not saying we shouldn't have catch-alls, as they can be quite useful for some... less typical functions... just that they shouldn't be the roots, and they shouldn't be the only thing the things are in because they're completely useless for the normal purpose of a category; too much to go through if just trying to find related pages. And if you really want to use wikipedia as an example, they don't use huge root categories, plain and simple - they diffuse them. That was part of what tipped me off about how off this whole thing was, and where I later got the notion of this 'diffusion' (and stole the original template from, for that matter) when it turned out the thing had acquired another purpose, one encouraging what has indeed turned into this mess. Don't say it wasn't. Categorising like this is just not good practice, and having a facilitator not only removes what could otherwise be motivation for folks to not do it, it in fact legitimises it. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 21:52, 3 June 2011
I am well aware that the catch-all categories don't have sub-cats, since I created and populated most, if not all of them. What about the issue of over-loading categories with userpage content though? I've tried to roll that back before, and, unsurprisingly, even the most conservative attempts at rolling it back where met with opposition. --Mn-z 02:19, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Vote to Restore {{subcat}} in all category pages

Score: 0
  • Symbol for vote For. leaving stuff alone. --Mn-z 21:07, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol against vote Against. Can I really ask, whats the point now that its all been converted? --Snowman111 Butlerstar Frosty dah snowguy contribs KUN PLEB Big GREEN Button Big red button 21:57, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
    Because I like to be able to see the sub-cats of a category. --Mn-z 02:19, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote For. Per above. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:02, 4 June 2011
  • Symbol against vote Against. Per the function of {{subcat}} no longer being relevant.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 01:20 Jun 05, 2011
  • Wouldn't "leaving stuff alone" mean that we should not restore subcat, since a lot of them have already been replaced and are, on the whole, no longer relevant? (This is an against) --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 01:21, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote For., since splitting large categories isn't always practical, and subcategories should always be visible on the first page. --Algorithm 05:31, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Large categories don't have to be the ones with the subcategories, though. The really ironic thing, however, is that category tables of contents, which are actually kind of useful for the large ones, only appear when there are subcategories starting with some number of different letters... and using subcat prevents that, as then none of them start with letters. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 05:40, 5 June 2011
    By table of contents, do you mean {{CategoryTOC}}? That is a manually added template, it does not appear automatically in categories. --Mn-z 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
    Really? I opened one of them before trying to find it and couldn't, but maybe whoever added it put it on trickily or some such... well, that'll help. Sort of. Still doesn't change the fact that most of these categories shouldn't be this big in the first place - trying to use them as a reason why we should use this other template makes no sense unless you really are trying to make the entire thing worse, because that's all that can happen if previous practices continue. They'll just keep getting bigger and accruing more random crap that has nothing to do with anything, including random pages, userpages, unrelated content, etc that cannot be picked out simply because there's too much of everything else. Can you really tell me you haven't run into some of this already? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 14:19, 5 June 2011
    I've tried to dial-back category clutter, it tends to annoy people for various reasons. See Forum:Removing templates and categories from inactive userpages for an example, and I believe you were mildy opposed to de-catting inactive user pages in that forum, but I digress. Also, the wiki is populated by people who think cracking wise in the navigational tools is the funny rather than lame. Moving the articles to narrower categories won't make policing that categories any easy. Each category would be easier to police, but it will be exactly offset by the fact that there would be more categories. --Mn-z 23:16, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
    I was more just against the way you two went about it, as I recall. I'm all for deleting annoying crap, but that went a bit too far in the wrong directions. And what's wrong with more categories? Having things that are actually somewhat descriptive seems a boon to me even besides the navigability aspect... 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 00:37, 6 June 2011
    I don't have a problem with more cats. However more cats would not make category policing any either. Regarding how we went about it, if I remember right, I took an issue to Hype, who was a temporary admin at the time, unilaterally announced a new policy regarding the matter. Which is sort of what happened with the bot removal of {{subcat}}. --Mn-z 01:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
    Except for the part where I asked some other admins first... I may have asked the wrong ones, but that's another matter entirely. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 01:11, 6 June 2011
    Hype discussed the issues with some established users before officially posting his ruling on the matter. Also, the issue was much less important. --Mn-z 01:16, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
    I understand you take your status as some established users very seriously, but the situations are hardly similar - one involves software and the other involves users. They both required doing to actually get sorted out, though, and all this arguing is getting us nowhere. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:45, 6 June 2011
  • Symbol for vote For. Of course restore them. This change loses information, disrupts the categories, and generally does nothing to improve the wiki, and just showed up without discussion. As one of the few users who really works on categories as a professional categorizer (since I was 9 years old, I've categorized things, starting with crayons and types of drugs) I see almost no need to vote because this should just be returned as a fair thing to do, per Mn-z. Aleister 12:18 5-6-'11
    Having giant categories disrupts the categories and loses information, and letting them keep getting bigger does nothing to improve the wiki. And this did have discussion - I asked around on IRC and nobody there had any idea why we were using the template at all. The documentation, what little there was, was from 2006. More organised wikis don't use anything of the sort. Logically, there appeared to be no reason we should have that, either, as in an organised structure only the leaves would be particularly large - hence the 'tree' metaphor instead of 'scruffy bush' or something. Considering the giant categories thing, that it really is currently a giant unsortable bush, I still don't see any logical reason to put it back, since it will just help such categories get even more out of hand than they have already. It's like having an attic full of squirrels and saying, 'oh, leave them; if we shoo them out, we'll have to clean up the mess' when they're already chewing through the electronics. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 14:19, 5 June 2011
    I did mention why we should use it, i.e. it places the sub-cats ahead of all pages and files, which is how I like category content to be displayed. (Actually, I'd also prefer articles to be placed ahead of all files, but I digress.) I don't really think {{subcat}} is responsible for the category mess, the fact that few people care about categories enough to properly organize them is why categories are a mess.
    Also, from Wikipedia:Category:American people of English descent and wikipedia:Category:Articles without infoboxes, it can been seen that wikipedia puts the sub-cats in front of articles. In other words, {{subcat}} does the same thing that wikipedia does automatically. --Mn-z 23:32, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
    Good research mnnbvxz. And please explain all of this to me in children's language. I set up the category "War Images", but a subcategory is "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Where will that connection/guidepost be found on the page if no admin steps in and stops the merry-go-round? And how are people supposed to know about the guidepost who seek out war images? Those are my questions three. Aleister 00:14 6-6-'11
    Yes, that's the software doing it in both of those exampes. Not the <categorytree>, but what's below that... agh! so I wasn't imagining it! Okay, fine, you got me - part of what made me think the software handled it properly were examples of that, indeed, it does it properly... but apparently not on 1.16, this version. Guess that's new with MediaWiki 1.17, which... okay, maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but I wasn't wrong about that! Just.. too soon. Oops? Still, one of the examples you provided does demonstrate a more effective way to force it on a case-by-case basis for now as well, that <categorytree> thing, as none of this changes the fact that most of them still shouldn't be that big, but using it on only ones that actually should be that big might make some people think twice about other ones. Meantime, I also added a tab to category pages with a direct link to the category tree to... make things easier. And there's this if you want a list of all of them that have subcats (which is already not entirely up-to-date). There are a lot, but I do intend to give them a thwack as well. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 00:37, 6 June 2011
    The cattree is a slight improvement, but I'd still rather have all the sub-cats on the catpage. --Mn-z 02:17, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Symbol for vote For. Pup 12:37 06 Jun '11 Symbol for vote For. DJ Mixerr 18:13, June 16, 2011 (UTC) DJMIXERR (talk)(contributions)

Bring back "Sub Cats"

Subcats
Score: 5
  • I used to love that cartoon. --Black Flamingo 19:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Cartoons that last 22 minutes are great --ShabiDOO 01:09, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • I like it when they sing. Aleister 12:19 5-6-'11
  • I´m voting a second time because this is just too imporant. --ShabiDOO 00:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • We all live in a subcat, a subcat, ... a subcat --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 00:43, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Subcats are the shit!! DJ Mixerr 18:14, June 16, 2011 (UTC) DJMIXERR (talk)(contributions)

Regarding Bloated Cats

Bloated Cat

I really don't have a problem with bloated cats. --Mn-z 01:45, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now about the best category categories

The real issue impeding categorization...

Is a surplus of "joke" categories that don't categorize. If navigation tools are used to crack-wise rather than actually navigate, it shouldn't be surprising that categories are disorderly. --Mn-z 02:24, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just treat them like real categories? Or how bad do they tend to get? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:54, 9 June 2011
Joke cats is part of the uncyc nature, despite making cleaning cats annoying. How about a cat for joke cats and having any joke cats a subcat of that? Means that they're all neatly bunched away and don't stuff up any of the cat tree. Pup 03:06 09 Jun '11
It is basically an issue of drowning out "real" categories. By "joke" categories, I mean categories which don't categorize, like Category:People who didn't fuck your mom in the kitchen last night or Category:Goat Blower or even Category:Axis of Evil-Doers . I don't mean legitimate categories about silly topics like Category:BUTT POOP or Category:A wizard did it. There is no good reason why Category:Axis of Evil-Doers should or shouldn't include any given article on the wiki, whereas there is a reason why 2 Wizards 1 Cup is in Category:A wizard did it and Joe Biden isn't.
Also, there is a related issue of categories that are completely redundant with each other. For example Category:Sexy People is basically co-extensive, or nearly so, with Category:Sexy, Category:Babes, Category:Too damn sexy, Category:Hot Babes You Don't Have A Chance With, Category:Hot chicks, Category:Goddesses, Category:Hot,  Category:Seriously, You Don't Have A Chance With Her et cetera. Yes, there would be times in an article would be in one or a few but not the rest (for example, sexy men). However, 95% of the articles that could go in any one of these cats could also go in the rest. This causes related content to be spread of several categories for no apparent reason. Whereas rational categorization would also divide content, but do so rationally. --Mn-z 21:32, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... haven't had much luck VFDing such duplicates in the past, have you? But when you put it like that... might help? Or we could try merging a couple and see if anyone even notices... but seriously, that is a bit of a problem. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 22:45, 9 June 2011
Like why we don't have a general wizard category, but we have Category:Not Wizards. What is supposed to go in there? Do we place wizard in that category as some sort of lame joke, or is it about the 99.937% of people who aren't wizards, and therefore, it should be almost co-extensive with Category:People and all its sub-cats. --Mn-z 23:16, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
The real issue impeding this wiki from being a not-the-worst place is that there is a surplus of users who don't understand that "jokes" are supposed to be "funny." --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 23:04, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
They're funnier when we treat them like they're real. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If we make a wizards category and put things people expect to be wizards but aren't, or perhaps another sort of wizard, or whatever seems funny in the not wizards, that should do it. Just remove the stupid ones idiots add like we remove stupid quotes from articles, or something. Or does that not work? I'd test, but I'm currently supposed to be doing something else, so I need to not do other things while I do other things that I shouldn't be doing while I put of what I actually should be doing. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 23:17, 10 June 2011
Also, it is difficult or impossible to consistently apply categories when they are used as footer listcruft rather than nagivational aids. For example, suppose that I find that Category:Boobage Images contains 600+ plus images. I can rationally divide the category in Category:Nonnude Boobage, Category:Seminude Boobage, Category:Nipple Slips, Category:Nipples, and to cover manboobs, blue-footed boobies, and the like, Category:Assorted Boobage. However, when I run into an over-populated joke category Category:Things that may be out to get you, there is no good reason why any page should or should not be in that category. Therefore, there is no rational way to sub-divide the category. 
I suppose I could separate out "people that may be out to get you". However, that misses the point: the category is not there to actually categorize, it is there to crack-wise in the form of footer listcruft. There is no good reason why is should be on, say, 150 pages instead of 15 or 1,500, or 15,000, or 1.5 pages. (Actually, I support placing it on exactly 0.00 pages, but I digress.) --Mn-z 01:11, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
Run into silly stuff like that, why not divide it up into a similarily silly manner, mon? Think like whoever came up with it and go wonkos! Or something. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 01:49, 11 June 2011
Okay, this may fall into :Category:Stupid questions, but if we were to delete cats that are joke cats that don't actually categorise, using Category:Goat Blower for example, and then change that to a redirect catch-all like Category:Joke category which the descriptor would e something along the lines of This is a category for all those stupid categories that don't actually categorise, or something to that effect, would that allow users to continue to use joke cats that don't categorise while at the same time removing a bundle of stupid cats that serve no real purpose? (And similar for redundant cats that are effectively just repetitions of each other and redundant as they are just repetitions of each other that are redundant...). For instance, Category:Sexy, Category:Babes, Category:Too damn sexy, Category:Hot Babes You Don't Have A Chance With, Category:Hot chicks, Category:Goddesses, Category:Hot,  Category:Seriously, You Don't Have A Chance With Her could all conceivably be redirected, from what I understand, to a single category. Does redirect work on categorisation? (I think that's my question), Pup 03:23 11 Jun '11
Apparently category redirects work, but it just seems like a bad idea... especially since what, even, is a joke category? Some may be obvious, but others less so, especially when people take them seriously. I'd rather limit that sort of thing to single use jokes. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 07:01, 11 June 2011
Categorisation has two effects, from what I can see. The first is to make it easier to find articles relating to a particular topic - or images if a particular subject. The second is to give a few feeble jokes at the end of an article. The only time I've seen anyone serious about a joke category is when that category has been removed from the end of an article. (Possibly because that feeble joFor example, if I place Miranda Cosgrove is Category:Sexy, but redirect said category to Category:Hot chicks, clicking on the category click will take the reader to Category:Hot chicks. However, the contents of Category:Sexy will not be moved, meaning that reader won't see Miranda Cosgrove in Category:Hot chicks, or any page that has Category:Sexy placed on it for that matter.

ke is the high point of humour in the article.) In that case removing the joke category page but leaving the category as a redirect means that you've satisfied the requirements for that writer, while leaving the search-ability via categorisation alone - or just as effective. And as to what counts as a joke category - I'd start off by looking at cats with only one or two articles. Some joke cats are inside jokes Category:My sojourn for instance is a joke cat but an inside joke - and as such is useable to find articles of a particular style. If the idea is to reduce the number of cats, then that would be my starting point. If the idea is to reduce the number of items in a particular cat, then sub-categorisation makes sense. And I am still in favour of keeping {{subcat}} alive as a means of navigation. Pup 07:33 11 Jun '11

First off, Category redirects do not work in a useful manner a category redirect will work like a page redirect, but it will not move content. For example, if I place Miranda Cosgrove is Category:Sexy, but redirect said category to Category:Hot chicks, clicking on the category click will take the reader to Category:Hot chicks. However, the contents of Category:Sexy will not be moved, meaning that reader won't see Miranda Cosgrove in Category:Hot chicks, or any page that has Category:Sexy placed on it for that matter.
Regarding joke categories, there is a difference between a category of in-joke pages and a useless category. Category:BUTT POOP, Category:My sojourn, and the like legitimately categorize related content, albeit, silly content. Category:Axis of Evil-Doers, Category:Wankers, and the like, on the other hand do not categorize, because there is no good reason why said categories are or aren't on any given page.
Regarding the issue that sub-cats make stuff harder to find, it depends on the subject. Maybe we need more catch-all categories, since we got rid of subcat, which means we never ever ever ever EVAR should have more than 200 items is a category with subcats ever.
Also, on the issue of catch-all categories, the "image database" categories are set up such that only as yet unsubcatted files should be in the holder cats, meaning that the holder cats should ideally be devoid of content. I'm not sure if it Lyritha's intend or not to totally diffuse the fat categories. However, to be consistent, an category should either include all relevant content or all relevant content should be diffused into sub-cats, with few exceptions (such as sub-catting all images but leaving articles in the main category.) --Mn-z 13:36, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
I quote from the last post, and rest my case, g'vnor. Aleister:
“For example, if I place Miranda Cosgrove is Category:Sexy, but redirect said category to Category:Hot chicks, clicking on the category click will take the reader to Category:Hot chicks. However, the contents of Category:Sexy will not be moved, meaning that reader won't see Miranda Cosgrove in Category:Hot chicks, or any page that has Category:Sexy placed on it for that matter.”
~ Mn-z on categories

Boobage has 600 plus images? So? That's a managable number, and if it gets diffused that is just turning gold into stupid. I just saw a category with 34 subcats, all diffusing what was once easy to find. This craze to diffuse is fucking up things which need not be fucked. Someone just took Ernest Hemingway out of cat:Writers. Ernest Hemingway is no longer in category:writers. Pages can be in two or three or five categories if they fit, that's how you find stuff!!!! Why can't the diffusers understand something so simple, put them in lots of categories. Ernest Hemingway is now only in category:American Writers. Well, not everyone knows he's American, but they know he's a writer. Why not go all the way, Cat:American writers with beards, that way we can lose the page even more. Aleister 11:41 11-6-'11

See - you've upset Al now. Mess with the bull get the shit is what my old dad used to say. Pup 12:20 11 Jun '11
Aren't you upset that there's a place with 600 pictures of boobs and they're trying to take that away from you? Aleister 12:32 11-6-'11
But they're not taking them away - just putting them all together in one huge miasma of boobishness. Sounds lovely to me. Pup 01:25 11 Jun '11
Actually, to find all 660 boob images, see Category:Boobage Images CA --Mn-z 13:38, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
OK, stop right there and see what you wrote. Wny not, and I know this is counter-intutive, move the name of cat:Boobage Images CA to...let me think, category:Boobage Images. Aleister minute later
Because Category:Boobage Images needs subcats depending on what kind of boobs you are looking for, and due to the removal of {{subcat}}, the subcats are spread over several pages of content. --Mn-z 14:18, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
I am so saddened by your words, and can see the boobs fading away before my eyes. Why not just put Boobs CA back to Boob Images and just leave it there, with sub cats added if someone doesn't want to look through 600 boobs. How is this not just common sense? I just found out what CA meant last month (California?). How does this help find boobs? HowTo:Find Boobs, a fine page title. Aleister 14:31 11-6-'11
I'd like to point out that:
  1. This situation has existed for over 2 years. To play to veteran card, the CA cat for boobage images was created March 6, 2009, and populated shortly thereafter. Your first edit was October 28th, 2009.
  2. Due to the removal of {{subcat}}, catch-all categories are VITAL for navigation. Blame Lyrithya for this.
  3. There is a lime green box on all the "image database holder" categories explaining where to find the images and what a "catch all" category is. Or, on some of the "semi-depreciated" categories, if there isn't a template, there are comments directing the reader as to where the relevant animal/porn images are. --Mn-z 14:44, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

New Header because of bad formatting above

I will be gone for about a week starting tomorrow. To reiterate what I said above in tl/dr format:

  1. CATEGORY REDIRECTS DO NOT WORK!!! Category redirects don't move the content of categories: to wit, adding a redirecting category to a page does not add the page to the category that is the target of the redirect.
  2. Due to the removal of sub-cat, any category that has more than 200 items and subcats will need to be diffused for navigational reasons. Lyrithya forced the issue by removing {{subcat}}, and please direct all blame for this issue to her and the other admins who suggested that she do it.
  3. There is a difference between categories of crap content and categories that don't categorize. Like trashcans and septic tanks, categories of crappy content are useful, categorizes that don't categorize aren't. --Mn-z 14:33, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
  1. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING BEFORE!!! But I was using that specifically regards to joke cats. But to concede the point, if we have useless categories that don't categorise, what's wrong with a Category:Joke Categories and having these non categorisable categories under the one category.
  2. Then we've shown there is a purpose in using {{subcat}}, so wouldn't it be better to continue using it? Isn't that what this forum was about anyway.
  3. Refer back to point 1
  4. It would make more sense to have someone like Hemmingway categorised as Category:Americans and Category:Writers. After all, he is both, so should be under dual categories, not a sub-category of either of the aforementioned categories.
And what does To reiterate I what I... mean? Pup 03:00 11 Jun '11
Regarding {{subcat}}, it appears that there is consensus to leave it as it. Therefore, all categories with 200+ items and subcats MUST be diffused. Again, please blame Lyrithya and her supporters for this.
Regarding having joke categorizes that don't place pages in categories, I think that is taking "navigational tools as canned wise-cracking listcruft" even further than the current system. --Mn-z 16:44, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding consensus, there really isn't. --Algorithm 19:13, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
There is however, enough opponents of {{subcat}} to prevent its restoration. Again, please blame Lyrithya for this. --Mn-z 22:27, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
Category redirects really don't work here? Says they should work in 1.16... but maybe wikia broke something or we're just missing something or something... and anyhow, assuming the subcat thing really isn't another Wikia broke something thing, it should definitely be pointless for that come next version, so putting it back really wouldn't make much sense, anyhow. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 00:35, 12 June 2011
I got tired of the discussion over redirects working or not working, so I've just created Category:Redirect test and Category:Redirect test II so I could see how it worked. This page, as of this edit, is categorised under the former, which is redirected to te latter. If you visit the former cat without specifying redirect=no it goes to the latter, and this page doesn't show up, and the redirect itself doesn't show as a sub category unless it's specified as a sub category on the redirect page. For what we were trying to use it for, this has become a dismal failure. I think the point of putting back {{subcat}} is that it makes navigating through categories much easier without having to create a bundle of extra links in the description of a category. Saying it'll probably work when we upgrade doesn't alleviate the problem that it doesn't work right now. Again, every turn in this discussion is making it more clear to me that {{subcat}} has a purpose as the wiki currently stands, and it shouldn't have been removed without at least some discussion, and should be brought back now that we've had some discussion. Changing something without discussion or investigation and them saying there's no point changing it back is a ridiculous argument. As much as it's a pain in the butt, I'd rather have categories that are fuller with a distinct line between pages that are within a cat and the subcats themselves. It makes sense from a navigational aspect and removing it saying there's no need when, in the minds of a significant percentage of the user base, there is a need, is stupid. In short, bring back {{subcat}}. Pup 01:23 12 Jun '11
The redirect techinally "works" in the sense that redirects. It doesn't "work" in the sense that it does not do anything that anyone would want a category redirect to do. Even if you were to put Category:Redirect test in Category:Redirect test II, it is still a witch to get to the subcat, since the link to Category:Redirect test redirects you back to Category:Redirect test II. Also, I agree with Puppy regarding {{subcat}} and the restoration thereof. Like I said before, subcat does the same thing that wikipedia does automatically. --Mn-z 01:53, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Another Header

I think it is clear that {{subcat}} is serving a function and should be restored. As the wiki stands, using [[Category:Category name]] in categoryspace will require that all categories have 200 items or no sub-cats. I don't think of majority of the peop0le on this wiki want to do that. And more importantly, I don't think there are people willing and able to diffuse every category with over 200 items. Unless someone is willing to diffuse those categories, all the subcat removal accomplishes is making the wiki harder to navigate. That also makes the tens of thousands of categorization edits that Sycamore, Socky, myself, MadMax, and other users did worthless, since the navigation system if screwed up for no good reason.

I also don't think {{subcat}} causes category bloat. For one, wikipedia already does it automatically. If in when we get upgraded to mediawiki 1.17 (or whatever it is), is Lyrithya suggesting that someone alter it to force sub-cats to appear on later content pages? If the subcat work around is bad in 1.16, doing the same thing automatically would be bad in 1.17.

Secondly and more importantly, it is not as though there is a flood of users just waiting around to rationally categorize everything. Relatively little progress has been made in diffusing categories, and the fact that navigation is now a bitch is not generating a flood of helpful categorization edits.

Thirdly, the wiki appears to support many "joke categories" that don't really categorize. Yes, one can diffuse a joke category. However, diffusing Category:Things that may be out to get you by creating Category:people that may be out to get you, and in turn diffusing that category by creating Category:American people that may be out to get you is an epicly stupid waste of time and effort. Also, it defeats the purpose of joke category, which is to crack-wise via navigational listcruft, not to create a listing of related pages. --Mn-z 02:27, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

I won't disagree; it has a function. Thing is, though, if that really was the original intended function, whoever came up with it was a complete moron. Normal categories, ie ones not intended to be catch-alls or general everything or for maintenance or DPL, they're pretty useless if they have more than a couple hundred things, anyhow, and the general everythings rarely contain subcategories because that's just not what they're for. That's a large part of why I never even considered it as a possibility as to why subcat did exist - what would be the point? A category of any use for navigation by users won't have that many, which is precisely why there is such a thing as subcategories. But I keep forgetting what a complete mess Uncyclopedia is...
Urg, anyhow, I'll put it back, unless you'd rather do it... the thing is completely idiotic, but the sorry state the categories have gotten into kind of necessitates it, though we still really need to diffuse a good heap of them. And the odds of that particular function being replaced by the softare aren't very good, either, considering Wikia's tendency to break even the rare sensible functions that sometimes get worked into the software.
Also, you should know that using subcat does have a side effect - it overrides legitimate sortkeys, such as are used on the UnNews categories. What do you propose we do about that? 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 08:31, 14 June 2011
Ignore it and hope it goes away. Pup 08:57 14 Jun '11
That's how we got this mess in the first place. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 09:13, 14 June 2011
What can I say - I'm a traditionalist. Pup 09:41 14 Jun '11
It is not the fault of {{subcat}} that the categories are a mess. The categories are a mess because relatively few people care enough about categories to massively categorize and move pages. That, and the fact that many people use categories are canned footer listcruft instead of navigational tools. And the fact that a good proportion of the userbase does not want to narrow cat everything.
Regarding the issue with subcat doing that thing, is there a way to fix that without messing up subcat's ability to force categories to the front? --Mn-z 01:34, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Add a sortkey parameter and then edit every single category that needs it directly, including all new ones. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 02:54, 22 June 2011

Tangerines

I ate a really sour tangerine today. It was sold to me in a shop owned by some guy from Bangladesh. I wondered if all Bengalis eat or sell sour Tangerines. Ive never met a Bengali who eats/sells sweet ones. Curious!!! --ShabiDOO 16:18, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

That sure is curious! But of course, if you'd looked under category Tangerines, and then sub category Sour Tangerines, I'm sure you would have found Bengal in there. At least, I think that's how this works. If not, I ONCE HAD A SOUR BANANA - I SWEAR THAT CAN'T EVEN HAPPEN! Nameable mumble? 15:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools
projects