Based on recent edit wars, there are two aspects of category policy which I believe should be discussed.
The first issue involves the creation of sub-categories which result in under five pages being left under the parent category, or results in parent categories solely containing sub-categories. One perspective to this issue is that the pages in the sub-category still count as part of the parent category's total, while on the flip side, there is the view that a sub-category is not warranted if it renders the parent category bare and under the standard page amount guideline.
Another issue I would like to bring up is an unchecked adding of parent categories to sub-categories which are not directly related to that parent category. For example, there is little issue with the Galley-La Company category having the Shipwrights parent category, as Galley-La is a shipwright company. However, there have been instances where people have added parent categories which are adherent to the parent category rules, but has a questionable relation to the subcategory itself. For example, if there is a group whose members happen to all be male, I would not be particularly inclined to make "Male Characters" a parent category for that group for three reasons:
- It makes navigation within the "Male Characters" category page significantly more complicated.
- The lack of the "Male Characters" category on the pages of characters in that group creates confusion with new users, causing them to add the category and forcing someone to undo it. Sometimes this is inevitable, but I'd like to minimize instances of these as much as possible and make category adding more streamlined.
- Should a female character join that group later on, it would force the category and all the pages with the category to be edited, potentially a large scale change that could have been avoided had we not been playing around with parent categories.
Thus, my proposal would be to add a limit so parent categories can only be added if their group is directly connected to the subcategory group. This mainly encompasses situations like a group of people who have the same occupation as a result of being in that group, or a tribe of people who are in that tribe because they are a particular gender (i.e. Kuja). If it is the case that every person in a group happens to share a trait based on nothing more than a coinicidence, and could easily add a new member who does not share that trait, then the parent category for that trait should not be added.
Hopefully I have articulated these issues well enough to be understood; if you're still confused about something just let me know. Otherwise, please discuss the two issues. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
|Hey! Let's talk this out!
This is an active forum. Please participate if you wish to make changes to the subject at hand. Remember to remain calm and civil throughout the discussion!
Agreed 100%. I've been having exactly the same thoughts regarding this. Categorization should be relatively simple and transparent, and mixing different categorization systems is usually counter-productive. Awaikage Talk 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- There are lists, character or otherwise, ignored everyday and when something is added to account for it another user has an issue.
- When there is a list based on a term that isn't conjectural but factual then said list should have someplace on this wikia if they have more than five items under it.
- To reduce byte count the " Character" part for the Characters by Gender subcategories should be removed.
- There should be a parent category for all the Former subcategories.
- A category being "ignored" does not necessarily mean it is neglected but rather is fine as is, and additions may be unnecessary or unwelcome.
- Not every trait deserves a category.
- If there is an issue with "Former" group categories, it is likely the "Former" category that needs to go, not the parent category. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with mixing multiple categorisation systems being dumb. I think it should be fine even if a parent category has no pages and only subcategories though? Judging only based on numbers isn't a good idea and context is important. For example, look at the highest tier category pages, they clearly NEED to be only subcategories, it would be weird if a character page was under 'Characters' and not a subcategory in it. On the other hand, smaller categories(comparatively) being only subcategories with the exception of the lowest tier category would also be dumb, so having every category having only one of either subcategory or pages isn't an option. As long as the number of subcategories in the parent category isn't 3 or lower, the parent category is still needed. (Dot Talk) 04:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's true. Parent categories like Category:Characters and Category:Images, and their immediate subcategories (Characters/Images by X) must only contain subcategories, as they are based on different sorting systems. That is, they categorize categories rather than articles. Awaikage Talk 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Some people here are just insistent on making categories more complicated than they should be.
Also, Galley-La Company should not be under Shipwrights because it has non-shipwright employees like Tyrannosaurus and Kalifa. Same for Tom's Workers since Kokoro is not a shipwright either.KingCannon (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Categories worked before just fine, before all of the superfluous changes were made. 17:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)