User talk:Pknkly/WikiProject Chicago/Categories

Talk page informaton

Disabiguation articles - ok to have Talk and Main page PSC?

Seems by setting PSCs within the main page (as was done with Harlem (CTA) using category:Chicago Transit Authority), a possible conflict was set up. By being in CHIBOTCATS the bot will try to establish a Chicago Project assessment value within the Talk page. But, the banner within the Talk page already has a Class value of "Disambig". Is this a problem? How can we resolve? I'm looking to establish a statement within this articles Disamgig Instructions where I have already given a manual "procedural solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknkly (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot won't try to class something that already has a class (not with its current orders anyhow). –xeno^talk 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether it is proper to have a main space category for dab pages. I have queried and no clear response has been rendered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I think it is up to each project. So, based on Xeno's statement, that it will not cause a conflict, I suggest setting it on the main page (as you did with Harlem (CTA) because it plays very well into the exception report Xeno's bot creates. I believe your addition of the PSC to the main page will remove the the article from Xeno's exception report. I've changed the instructions in the article to state the main pages are to get an appropriate PSC. Pknkly (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No response to date. Perhaps some more information will be found by which the answer would be gleaned. Pknkly (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Chicago Project categorization guidelines"

Are these types of guidelines and "policy" statements made anywhere else within Chicago Project pages? Don't want to duplicate and risk contradiction and thereby confuse readers/members. Pknkly (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looked at all the subpages of WikiProject Chicago. Didn't look like there was one. There might be something within the pages. Pknkly (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Few instructions given within talk pages (e.g., Category talk:Chicago, Illinois ) but that is about it. Pknkly (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted {{cat class}} from Chicago Project categories

I'm sorry about causing you ( User talk:Funandtrvl ) work with the deletes of {{cat class}} from Chicago Project class based assigned categories (e.g., Category:Category-Class Chicago articles ). So I can get a better understanding how these are used would you please answer the following questions or point me to articles that have the answer? Is it the ":Category:Chicago articles by quality" that is important for bots to run correctly? Which bot does that? Also, is the category placed by the {{cat class }} template or is it added manually? Is the {{CategoryTOC}} also used by bots? Pknkly (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hope the following will explain things:

1. Is it the Category:Chicago articles by quality that is important for bots to run correctly?

   Yes, also involved is Category:Chicago articles by importance. The parent category for these two categories, as is for all projects using the {{WPBM}} template, is: Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments.

2. Which bot does that?

   See: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

3. Also, is the category placed by the {{cat class}} template or is it added manually?

   The categories of "Foo articles by quality" and "Foo-Class articles" are automatically placed by: {{cat class}}; and "Foo articles by importance" and "Foo-importance articles" are respectively auto-placed by: {{cat importance}}.

4. Is the {{CategoryTOC}} also used by bots?

   Sort of. When a quality or importance category is created, the {{WPBM}} template auto-adds (pre-fills) "CategoryTOC" to the newly created category page, in addition to either the "cat class" or "cat importance" template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Working the above into the article. Pknkly (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Still looking for time to get this done.Pknkly (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

dichotomy - categories for main namespace and the project space

I think the dichotomy between the categories for main namespace and the project space, which is almost always related to "talk" pages only needs to be emphasized. ( message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take a round of edit and make the changes that would give it the right emphasis. I will stay out of the article until you are done. Pknkly (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a few issues: in the project banner template, "class" and "importance" are always lower case. The actual parameters like: "Stub" or "Start" can be either upper or lower case, both will work. Second issue: I'm not sure how to reword this section: Establishing a PSC014, but pages are added to: "Category:Category-Class Chicago articles" by the bot, when using the project banner template. It should almost never be added manually to a page, instead it would involve using the "cat class" template; so this section needs to be re-worded, or else I'm not completely understanding what it is trying to say. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, I get lost in it myself. I'll take another shot at it based on what I learned since yesterday. Pknkly (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Regarding getting lost, it took me several hours to try to figure this page out. I think we need to remember to "keep it simple", because I can see that you are a very detailed & comprehensive writer, but to the average reader, it might be a little technical & complicated. Please don't take offense, but I have a Master's degree and I had problems trying to figure it out! Have a good weekend anyways! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. Ultimately it must be made as simple as possible. Unfortunately, relating a complicated topic in a simple way is something that is difficult for me. I'll do my best, but I'm sure others will need to rephrase and make it simpler. Pknkly (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point we need to add in there somewhere: if the talk page is from a non-article, like portal, image, project, category, user, template, etc., one does not need to add the optional class & importance parameters to the project banner template, because the template will automatically determine the "namespace" and assign the proper class accordingly. However, any article namespace talk pages will need those two optional parameters to be manually assigned (or by a bot), including the list and FL talk pages. The disambig and redirect talk pages only require the "class" parameter to be manually added, because the "importance" parameter is automatically set to "NA". --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I planned to have a subsection for each PSP and within those sections give the details for that PSP. You summed it up very well. We'll need to hold onto your words and use them in the article. Pknkly (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Plan to archive this discussion just as soon as it is incorporated into the article - even if it is in draft form. 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated some within "Overview" sections. Please review the "Overview sections (they can be seen within the TOC of the document) and see if it is adequately covered. Pknkly (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

High level Chicago Project admin category

Maybe we should create: Category:Chicago Wikipedia administration? Projects that use this type of administration are listed in: Category:Wikipedia administration by topic, and may serve a useful purpose in following their style of organization. (message by User talk:Funandtrvl copied from User talk:Pknkly ) Pknkly (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What I thought we could do is capture the Chicago Project scope with high level category codes. I tried to describe them within the article at the "PSC014 - Category page PSCs" starting with paragraph "Based on these perspectives, ...". Pknkly (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think your suggestion is a must have. Especially when it integrates the Chicago Project category scheme with the larger Wikipedia Project scheme. Pknkly (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• If there isn't one already (perhaps you would know), should we have one for " : Category:Chicago Wikipedia maintenance "? I think the two functions are closely related, but would require different tools and possibly categories. Pknkly (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance would refer to the categories of "Chicago articles needing attention" and "Chicago articles needing infoboxes", etc., so it would still fall under "WikiProject Chicago articles", which would be a sub-category of: "Chicago Wikipedia administration". I'm not sure I see a need for a separate maintenance cat, since all the project's articles would be in need of maintenance, at some point!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see how the maintenace pages would go into "WikiProject Chicago articles" and roll up into "Chicago Wikipedia administration". Would the admin pages go directly into "Chicago Wikipedia administration" or would they roll up to it through a subcategory? To me it looks like all the admin pages are within the Wikipedia namespace and maintenance pages are within Category and Template namespaces. Do you see that too? Interestingly, Category:WikiProject Chicago seems like it wanted to have within it all the Wikipedia namespace pages and Category:WikiProject Chicago articles has nothing but Category pages including the templates. To me, as you mentioned, it indicates that "WikiProject Chicago articles" was meant to hold maintenance pages and subcategories. Category:WikiProject Chicago has a lot of the pages from Wikipedia namespace and a lot of Category pages. Do you suppose it was treated as the "admin" page? Pknkly (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See the organization of: Category:WikiProject Canada. Because the Canada project has 30+ child WikiProjects, the "Canada Wikipedia administration" category is used for the pages & categories pertaining only to the Parent Canada WikiProject. For our project, the "WikiProject Chicago articles" category would normally have all the talk pages of every template-tagged article and non-articles within the project. This is determined by the "MAIN_CAT" parameter in the project banner template, which is currently not turned on, but it can easily be activated again. The only problem is that the cat. would be filled with the 19,000+ talk pages in the project and would need a large TOC for it; however, the advantage of it is that one would have a category with an alphabetical list of all the articles (and non-) within the project. The categories which are already in there would stay. Let me know if you think we should active the "MAIN_CAT" parameter again. (we'll have to do a rqst for an edit protected pg. again.)

I will look at Category:WikiProject Canada and other projects as well. Sorry, I can't provide a meaninful discussion about "MAIN_CAT" - I don't know about it at this time. I will look around and try to understand it. This sounds important so I copied your statements and question into a new section. FYI - The day today is not mine. I am driven by other forces and may not be able to get to this until later this evening. Pknkly (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the "project" namespace pages (not the "project talk" pages), yes, the main WPCHI category is technically the "admin" category for those pages. Although, I have seen several projects with a lot of project sub-pages create a category called: "WikiProject Chicago pages" or "WikiProject Chicago project pages" that could hold those pages, under the main "WPCHI" category, which would still remain the top or parent cat. of the project. Other categories that could be added to the main WPCHI cat. would be the WPILLINOIS project, so it could be cross-referenced. The Chicago wp admin category would hold categories similar to what Category:Canada Wikipedia administration has in it. I know this gets complicated, but I hope this explains it, a bit. (although, I'm think I'm done editing for the nite!) --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is explaining a lot. I appreciate the effort you are putting into presenting your vision that is based on your Wiki experience within the Chicago Project. I will try to digest the above more fully after I've done some looking around at the Canadian project as well as rereading of Project categories. I again read it yesterday and this time the dichotomy you brought up in another discussion popped out of the page. Pknkly (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also reread the project categories section and it explains very well what I was trying to say yesterday, because as I read thru the wpchi/cat page, I noticed that it doesn't address the distinction very well. I was trying to fix it in some way, but it is pretty complicated to do. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't emphasized because I didn't understand it until the start of these discusssions. Reading all the documents and looking at how people did things (which rarely followed the documents) confused the heck out of me. I hope this article will continue to evolve, clearly make the distinction, and help editors and Chicago Project members make sense of the categorization scheme. Pknkly (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote the above statement I felt as though I'm straying from the topic of this section. So, I'm putting this statement as a placeholder so I can get back on track after I go throught the Canadian pages. Pknkly (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Canadian pages. Two things jumped out that did not work for me.

• No info box - I looked and looked at the subcategories and the pages and could not recognize how it was structured. To me it looked like some things were dumped in there (I'm sure they weren't). Since anybody can put any page anywhere I couldn't spot what were well placed items and which were inadvertetnly placed there. I think our instructions must include the use of info boxes. Maybe a bot could give an exception report for in scope categories that don't have an info box. Pknkly (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Too many things lumped into the highest "Parent" or "Top" category - Looked to me like they could of had one category called "Subprojects" which should have been under Admin. Avoiding clutter makes it more intuitive and I think at the highest level it should be intuitive. Beyond the page needed for an eponymous category all other pages within the page section didn't make sense being there. Perhaps it may have if there were in info box Pknkly (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For me the Canadian example points out some "lessons learned" that I hope we can avoid or control with info boxes and just simply having things documented as we are doing with wpchi/cat. Pknkly (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By infoboxes, do you mean the mboxes with the explanations at the top of the categories? They are very helpful, however, I modified one thing with the wpchi project categories. I added a show/hide box for the quality scale (see WP:CHIQUALITY.) The main reason for this is because I added all the project categories to the wp:chiquality page, and corresponding examples, it is rather long, so if it is fully expanded at the top of a project category page, one must scroll down 4-5 pages to get to the actual page list view in the category. I find that inefficient and annoying (just me, I know), but I like to save keystrokes and limit the amount of scrolling. It is nice to see everything important on the first page view of a category, and not have to look 5 pages down for what you're looking for, don't you agree? I can also do one up for the wpchi importance page, I know that you were working on it, and I can use the Template:Importance scheme and customize it with your descriptions. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice use of the "hide" feature - very helpful. Saw you buzz through all the pages setting things right with the category declarations for WikiProject Chicago. I believe you are asking me if the use of the "hide" option would be useful in Category:Chicago articles by importance. If you are, it would be very useful for the elimination of the annoying need for the "4-5 page scroll down" . Pknkly (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are also asking to use an updated Template:Importance scheme for wpchi and use the current Chicago Project narrative for each importance value. If my understanding is correct, that too would be a good thing. Thanks for your consideration and offer to improve those categories.Pknkly (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for using the wrong word - it is mboxes not infoboxes. (please pick up this discussion within new section. Pknkly (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Concept - Core and Incidental category paths

As we work on the scheme it sounds like we are going to try and work in a "core" (or maybe a better word would be "absolute") set of paths that would be maintained by the Project team. The team is given tools to maintaine these core paths. The "incidental" paths are those set up by any editor at any time based on their own personal or perceived scheme. The core and incidental paths intertwine and so the challange is to identify the categories used within the core paths and the proper use of them.

Is there a similar concept already documented? If not, lets develop it further and include it in the article. I'll look at wp:categorisation again to see if it is there. Pknkly (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reread wp:categorisation. It mentions the need to keep separated "content categories" and "project categories" ( see Project categories ) but now how to do that. Sounds like that is what we have to wrestle with. How have other WikiProjects come to terms with this need? Pknkly (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you didn't read the above "Reread wp:categorisation" to mean I suggested that you reread. I should have written "I reread.....". Crazy English language. Pknkly (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we really need to make the distinction clear to readers. It seems like most other WPs emphasize the "project categories" and mention little about the "content categories" in their work. Even though the two go hand in hand, wpchi does need to put more emphasis on the "project" categories. I would suggest that 2 subpages be made, one that would cover how to categorize a Chicago-related article in the mainspace, and one that would cover the assessment process for the project. This would have to tie in with the project's /Assessment page, since they are closely related. Another point of confusion: the term "Tag" usually refers to adding the project banner template to the relevant talk page of an article. Also, the emphasis on the difference of upper case "talk" and lower case "talk" is not a clear way of explaining things, since there was at least one example on the wpchi/cat pg where it could have been either way. In addition, using mathematical codes, such as "PSP001", etc., in writing the explanations is maybe not the best thing to do, because it is too technical. In reading the pg yesterday, I often found myself looking up at the table to try to figure out which category the sentence was refering to. I would suggest to use plain English terms, in addition to the mathematical codes, otherwise we will lose most readers along the way. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied above statements by Funandtrvl to here so ongoing discussions can focus on readability and use of subpages. Pknkly (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The categorization feature of Wikipedia's software allows and encourages users to develop their own categorization scheme. This beneficial element of the categorization feature sets up an environment within which multiple categorizatin schemes, that are mostly undocumented, must coexist. Among all the category schemes one needs to be developed and maintained by the Chicago Project members so that they can fullfill their purpose. That one categorization scheme among the many is the Core Scheme which needs to be understood, developed as needed, and documented. The other schemes are the Incidental Schemes and may not be clearly understood or documented. They are, nevertheless, a vital component of the categorization feature of Wikipedia. Sometimes a review of the incidental processes may reveal a need to change the Core Scheme. Pknkly (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The above paragraph was moved within the document at Categorization scheme section. Pknkly (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorization scheme section

I set the section title so that the entire section can be moved out of the PSC014 topic area. I plan to move it toward the end so that by the time a reader gets to it they are familiar with the article's unavoidable jargon. I thought the section would follow the PSC and PSP topics and be before the BOTS section. I'll wait until the recent edits to the scheme area are settled. If the edits are settled for the time being, please move the scheme section. It doesn't have to be me doing the move. Pknkly (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read your new additions, but I'm sure they're okay, we can always revise them later on. Using the {{in use}} template is highly recommended, like you said, that way we know someone's in the process of updating the page. I'm going on a nighttime wikibreak now, don't work too hard! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With the use of MAIN_CAT I need to look at it myself. I wanted to reaffirm the need for an Admin category. When I made these changes I was ignorant about importance and value of Category:WikiProject Chicago articles as populated via MAIN_CAT. I now see the light and don't know what to do with it other than to note the use of ":Category:WikiProject Chicago articles" for the time being. I haven't moved the section so you can look at history for a compare. Pknkly (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The section was moved with some modifications based on the above discussion. I moved it to the front of the page so it given an idea to the readers what is to be accomplished. Due to what the section currently says I've made some changes to the parent/child relationship between Category:WikiProject Chicago and Category:Chicago, Illinois. I plan to restructure the parent/child relationships between the three main categories if the narrative within the section gets some more feedback. Pknkly (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment here, but I am unsure why.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The request was in response to the following left at my talk page: "As I look at Category:Cycling in Chicago, Illinois, I am curious about why each article should also be in Category:Chicago, Illinois just because it may be in this category.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:52 am, 31 October 2009, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−5)". Since the section was moved to a subdocument (please see below), please leave your comments within the new talk page that discusses improvements to the categorization scheme. Pknkly (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Due to the excessive size of the Categories page the section on the categorization scheme was moved to within a subdocument at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categorization scheme. Please continue the discussions within the new subdocument. Pknkly (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Improve readability and use subpages

To following message was copied from another discussion section.

Yes, we really need to make the distinction clear to readers. It seems like most other WPs emphasize the "project categories" and mention little about the "content categories" in their work. Even though the two go hand in hand, wpchi does need to put more emphasis on the "project" categories. I would suggest that 2 subpages be made, one that would cover how to categorize a Chicago-related article in the mainspace, and one that would cover the assessment process for the project. This would have to tie in with the project's /Assessment page, since they are closely related. Another point of confusion: the term "Tag" usually refers to adding the project banner template to the relevant talk page of an article. Also, the emphasis on the difference of upper case "talk" and lower case "talk" is not a clear way of explaining things, since there was at least one example on the wpchi/cat pg where it could have been either way. In addition, using mathematical codes, such as "PSP001", etc., in writing the explanations is maybe not the best thing to do, because it is too technical. In reading the pg yesterday, I often found myself looking up at the table to try to figure out which category the sentence was refering to. I would suggest to use plain English terms, in addition to the mathematical codes, otherwise we will lose most readers along the way. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy performed by Pknkly (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Tag" I asked people for what tag meant and got severel different answers. That is why I had a section on how terms are used in the document. I think the use of a section about how terms are used within the article is good since there are so many different meanings to the terms (see glossary for tag ). With my reread of "Wikipedia:Categorization" I beleive I found the right pharase for my use of "tag". It is "category declarations". Would you please look at How categories work and see if my understanding is correct? Pknkly (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still trying to find the time to reread wpchi/cat pg. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to read whole document, just Category tag. I'm sure you would agree that the use of "category declarations" is good and should be used to replace that whole section. Pknkly (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished making the change about a week ago. Pknkly (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk or talk With regard to Talk or talk. I meant the capatized form to mean a specific type of talk page (e.g., "Within Mainspace Talk the WikiProject Chicago template must....." ). The lower case "talk" would refer to any talk page (e.g., "WikiProject Chicago template is always placed within talk pages, never the Basic page."). It was a mistake if I was inconsistent in its use. I did realize that I was getting away from standard convention, but I never saw the logic of "them" using the lowercase form. If it detracts from the readability of the document, due to not following standard convention, I'll drop the use of the capitalized form. After reading the above, are you still in favor of dropping the capitalized form?Pknkly (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Will reread pg to see if I can find again the sentence that confused me. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, I don't want to put you through that. It sounds like it would help readability because other documents don't use the capitalized form. Your gut level feeling is good enough. Pknkly (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of code I started to use the "mathematical codes" because the repetitive use of phrases like " Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago" made reading even harder for me. I tried coming up with mnemonics which didn't work (e.g., AWPCHI for "Article that is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago"). I finaly settled on a compramise between a mnemonic for Project Scope Page (PSP) and the number of the name space as gien within the table. I don't know how to get away from the use of the codes. To get a feel for what the document would look like without codes do a "replace all" for PSC014 with "Project Scope Category Basic page" or whatever phrase may work. I just don't know what to do. Nevertheless, I completely understand and agree with your point. I thought within each PSP and PSC section we could use a less technical summary/overview without the use of codes or mnemonics. Like the one you made yesterday at the bottom of the "Dichotomy" discussion. Perhaps you could compose the summary/overview and I would translate it into PSC and PSP etc. Do you think this might work? Pknkly (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could use a combination of the math codes and written out descriptions, I don't see a problem with that. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. Wherever we have a section with "Overview" it will mean this is where English is spoken. Pknkly (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Started using the "Overview" sections (see TOC for these) where only "english" is spoken. Please review and comment. Also, please add "overview sections" where it would help readers. Pknkly (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of subpages I too thought about use of subpages. I thought the scheme section would grow and ultimately need its own page. I see huge benefit in your idea about subpages for "WikiProject Chicago project categories" and "WikiProject Chicago content categories". That would set it up very nicely for readers to be guided to the "WikiProject Chicago content categories". We would not be losing readers due to reading technical stuff. No PSP001,PSC014, or any code within the "reader" document. The tone should be one reader (us) talking to the users of the encyclopedic Articles and encyclopedic Categories (it wasn't until my reread of wp:categorization that it sank in). I assume the main document wpchi/cat would have sections with summarizing narrative about the content of subpages and have it state "Main article:WikiProject Chicago content categories" at the top of the section. I would want to see the subpages under wpchi/cat not WPCHI. Agreed? Pknkly (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 2 subpages (content & project) could be subpages of the subpage wpchi/cat, not a problem! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I don't have a vision for how that would look within wpchi/cat but at least we know where they will be. If you don't mind, I'll go through wpchi/cat and kind of give it an outline view. Hopefully, that will let us see which sections are going to be within the subpages. Pknkly (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpage for content created and started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categories for encyclopedic articles. This page is meant for general readers/editors, so I tried my best to keep out all jargon. The long name was needed because "articles" is interpreted in many different ways. From what I've seen everyone seems to agree that encyclopedic articles are only in Main. Pknkly (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of "noinclude" for category declarations

Noticed the category for the article (wpchi/cat) was changed to have "noinclude". What did that do or prevent? Is it something that is needed for certain types of articles? Pknkly (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Very observant! Actually, the noinclude tag isn't necessary on that pg unless the pg is being transcluded. (See: WP:TRANS.) It prevents the category on the specific pg from being added to the pg that is transcluding it. We need to add the proj category to all the subpages of WP:WPCHI (so we can view them in a list on the cat:wpchi pg), and it is just easier to use the following instead of looking up "what links here" and then sorting out the transcluded links, (also see: WP:SORTKEY and Help:What links here):

<noinclude>[[Category:WikiProject Chicago|<sortkey>]]</noinclude>

To see the list of proj subpages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/ and of proj talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=WikiProject+Chicago%2F&namespace=5. These pages need to have categories added, the talk pages should have the template banner added. Note that on a few subpages, the info was placed on the talk pg and not the project pg. Don't know why, but maybe the info should be moved to the proj pg, so the talk pg can be tagged by the proj template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note for the subpages with italics, they are redirect pgs. We need to ck "what links here" and update the target pgs and then speedy-delete those pages for cleanup and consolidation purposes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the above and only obsorbed about 50% without following your links. Sounds important to understand and has potential for inclusion in wpchi/cat. I like the hard rule (I'm assuming it is one - please confirm) " We need to add the proj category to all the subpages of WP:WPCHI". Will look into the above more deeply after quick look at Canadian project and the newly populated category used with MAIN_CAT. I'l have to pause until this evening. Pknkly (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been adding the project category and template to the wpchi's subpages. I haven't caught all of them yet, but I think we're up to 34+. I have to go too, back to my real job. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Standardizing use of mboxes

Yes, I'm sorry for using the wrong word, it is mboxes not infoboxes. I discovered them at what looked like categories used by developers and adopted them for the re-categorizing work at Category:Organizations based in Chicago, Illinois. There, when I needed to, I created new categories and incorporate the use of mboxes and a "See also" section directing readers to the Chicago project (e.g., Category:Sports associations based in Chicago, Illinois ). I used a copy and paste process and so the mboxes hopefully evolved in the right direction. Shall we incorporate the use of mboxes into the "Effective category" section of wpchi/cat? In another words, an effective wpchi category would have:(a) wpchi category - a PSC014 - within the Basic page; (b) the WikiProject Banner in the talk page; and now it would also need (c) to use an mbox. If we do, I think in the future a bot could find wpchi category pages that don't have an mbox and the Chicago Project team could respond to it. Pknkly (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very good idea! I was thinking of how we could combine Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Quality Scale with Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Project banner (and I think we need to rename the 2nd one, because it's a holdover from previous days), so that we would have a concise paragraph for each project cat regarding quality, and then we can make one for each proj cat regarding importance. It would save keystrokes. I'm also finding a couple of subpages of wpchi that only have one or two sentences on them, and there are a couple of redirect subpages, that we need to combine into an archive & then speedy-delete them, or we'll have an exponential explosion of project subpages!! And yes, please archive "main cat" since the issue is solved and closed. (BTW, could you point me to where the archive is?) Will ck back here probably tomorrow, have a good evening! P.S., for the project categories, we could just use the combined pg mentioned above instead of a mbox, they sort of work the same way, but the combined pg is a little more flexible, meaning you can put the show/hide options on it, whereas the mbox is limited by size. So the mboxes could be used where just a paragraph is needed with no transcluded pages. (just a thought) --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we are in agreement and will reference use of mboxes (or other means for giving information about intended use of the category) as an element of effective categories. I'll leave this discussion open for three days before archiving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Archive 1 (small maybe too hidden archive navbox top right). Pknkly (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I see it! (I was looking for the archive box) Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Started developing two WikiProject Chicago templates by which the mbox would be automatically added, along with the right categories, for content categories being created and project/tracking categories when those are created. They are at User:Pknkly/TempWork02 for tracking categories and User:Pknkly/TempWork03 for content categories. Pknkly (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though the development of the templates is changing, I started using them with a copy paste (pseudo subst) to help in creating more informative project and content categories used by Chicago Project. Pknkly (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of distinguished subcategories for main content categories

I believe it should be standard practice to use distinguished subcategories for both Category:Chicago, Illinois and Category:Chicago metropolitan area. As can be see from the duplicate categorization rule it is an accepted procedure and in my opinion way too unrealized and unused by other projects. The use of distinguished subcategories would allow readers to look for articles using either the list of articles within the two main content categories or within the distinguished subcategories. By not using distinguished subcategories we are limiting readers to using only subcategories. Pknkly (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected in general. However, I see little reason for McDonald's Cycle Center to belong to Category:Chicago, Illinois.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason that McDonald's Cycle Center should be a member of Category:Chicago, Illinois is that a rule requires all articles about Chicago to be placed into a single category within which would be distinguished categories for things like Category:Cycling in Chicago, Illinois. This approach to a structured Chicago Categorization scheme sets up the potential for readers to use one category to find their articles either by name search within the article or going right to a subcategory that has within a grouping of related articles. Pknkly (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois is a distinguished category of Category:Transportation in Illinois, I guess since not every city is going to have a category, however, it is not a distinguished category of Category:Chicago, Illinois.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the pages that are within Category:Transportation in Illinois you will see that none of them are within Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois. So, Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois is not a distinguished category of Category:Transportation in Illinois. To be a distinguished category all the page members of the distinguished category must also be page members of the parent category of the distinguished category. If, as I propose, all the Chicago related articles are placed into Category:Chicago, Illinois then any Chicago Project content category that is placed within the Category:Chicago, Illinois would automatically become a distinguished category since all the members of the distinguished category are also members of Category:Chicago, Illinois. Pknkly (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What to do with these pages

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#How_much_categorization_guidance_does_a_city_need? about these pages. DexDor ^(talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)