5,731 Pages

Forums: Index → Site Problems →  Category Creation and Removal

For the past few months, we have had problems with contentious category creation, as well as categories getting removed from pages. Additionally, parent category pages keep being made without discussion.

We already have category guidelines that specify the following:

  • Try to avoid creating overly specific categories that only have very few pages in them, especially if those pages would fit in a more general category that already exists.
  • In order for a category page to be given a parent category, every page in that category must also belong in the parent category.

Under the first rule, many of the recently created "non-canon" categories violate the policy due to only having a few pages included, especially when more general categories exist and are already small. Waitresses and [[:Category:Non-Canon Waitresses|non-canon waitresses]] are a perfect example; the main category only had 7 pages before being split, and now they have 4 and 3 respectively. In my opinion, these kinds of categories are completely unnecessary.

Other examples include:

Another facet of the category creation issue is Rgilbert27's unfinished Chapters by Volume "project", which has just left a bunch of incomplete categories because one user doesn't ever finish organizing them. Most of these issues boil down to one or two users making massive changes to how we categorize pages without consulting anyone else. I believe a forum is the best place to discuss this, as it has been a point of contention across the wiki for some time now.Montblanc Noland :: Talk 23:48, April 18, 2019 (UTC)


Regarding the creation of smaller categories under a parent category, I would propose the minimum number of pages on the category be 5.

I don't think it would be particularly prudent to force a forum for every time a new category is made, that would do more to impede productive work than aid it. What I would propose is, if your category is removed, you have to discuss it on the talk page (though that should be obvious).

Perhaps, in an effort to prevent the spam of an unwanted new category, a user would have to ask an admin if they plan on making a new category that would incorporate around 15 or more pages. If the admin opposes it, the user can open a forum. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 00:01, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

There should be a minimum number requirement for a new category. I don't think we need a "Mercenaries Who Wear Orange" category (for instance) if it only applies to a small number of characters. That minimum would also make retroactive purging an easier task. We should also examine the potential usefulness of other categories that exceed the minimum by less than 50%. I feel like 5 is too small and 10 would be a better minimum. DancePowderer Talk 00:20, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

5 should be fine. Also a lot of those can just be merged into each other since we don't need non canon categories for everything when the non canon ones are tiny. Cindry is the only canon category in the actor category because it was pointlessly changed so the non canon characters were removed. Also the thieves category had already been deleted. I don't know why it was remade. SeaTerror (talk) 02:33, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 5. I am not opposed to the idea of admin permission, but I think, due to the fact that we only have 2 active admins, it should be expanded to include content mods. Montblanc Noland :: Talk 07:22, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think five should be a rule. We have groups like the Category:Yonko, [[:Category:Marine Admirals]], and some of the above examples, who will always be less then five, and with a limit, a good category would be deleted. Saying that "any category with less then five pages should be discussed with an admin" might be a good way to cover ourselves in those cases, and incorporate the rule without users deleting good categories because they break a rule.

Also, having a rule like that doesn't prevent the creation of bad categories. The canon and non-canon Category:Talking Animals categories is a good example of five page with a connection that there is no reason to split. When establishing those types of rules, it is better to have a workaround for sticklers like SeaTerror to be more understanding to new concepts. Rhavkin (talk) 07:46, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

Non canon categories are only supposed to exist when there are a lot of them such as non canon devil fruit users. A lot of them should never have been split. SeaTerror (talk) 18:50, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

I meant the 5-page minimum in terms of creating subcategories. For new, distinct group categories that don't have parent categories, so long as there are multiple named members there is no issue in creating those. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:34, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

So what we need is a clarification on the term "parent categories". Doesn't everything has at least one parent category? Category:Helmsmen has only three pages and it's under Category:Characters by Occupation. Rhavkin (talk) 04:58, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

I found an example of a bad category that was created years ago. [[:Category:Former Marine Lieutenant Commanders]] SeaTerror (talk) 17:53, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

The idea behind my proposal regarding parent categories is to cut down on the creation of unnecessary subcategories from an already existing category whose pages all properly belong in it. The Category Guidelines currently say: "Try to avoid creating overly specific categories that only have very few pages in them, especially if those pages would fit in a more general category that already exists."

So it would apply to that. It would not apply to things such as a unique group category - there may be only three pages in the Helmsmen category, but since Helmsmen are not a subgroup of another group, there is no real parent category that those pages can be moved to.

The "Characters by X" parent categories are a different type of parent category, since they are specifically designed to organize categories. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:39, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody oppose the five-page minimum proposal? Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 17:58, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a proper minimum amount of articles. Pau D. Seven·Talk 18:06, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

As long as some exceptions would be permitted within reason, to prevent removing proper categories despite a low number. Rhavkin (talk) 20:01, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

I believe this discussion has run its course, then. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 21:06, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.