Wikibooks talk:Categories

Trying to get a start on this. I'm approaching this from a "set-theoretical" point of view, stressing elegance and minimalism. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do like the text of this, but I worry that some of the language is almost too convoluted to understand. However, i note that there probably isn't an easy way to describe what you are trying to say. You might want to include mention of some categories, such as the root category (Category:Main Page), the category for things specific to wikibooks (Category:Wikibooks), and some other categories of note. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's definitely explainable in easier language, I'm just using a mathematical shorthand to describe the structure before translating it to plaing English. What might be nifty is to have diagrams (circles in circles, etc.), but I'm not much of a whiz at graphics editors. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Case against categories
I want to re-establish my case against broad wholesale categorizing of all pages on Wikibooks. For me, I think it is foolhardy at best and damaging to absurdity at its worst.

Mind you, I am not against the use of categories within a given Wikibook, as a tool for the authors of that Wikibook, but I am against working to make sure that each and every page of every Wikibook is put into some category page. The main reasons are as follows:


 * It is a waste of time. Not only to category arrangements change over time, so do structures of the book itself.  Active Wikibooks users who want to go through the 20,000+ pages could be more useful doing things like culling orphaned pages, fighting vandalism, and other more useful tasks.  While my priorities might not be yours, this certainly can be considered quite a low priority item by most objective views.
 * It might be a waste of time for your particular purposes, but not for others, such as keeping track of things. If Special:Uncategorizedpages is kept empty, it would then provide a good place to go for those seeking to make sure new modules are well-seated and easy to find. Working through the backbone structure of wikibooks might not have the thrill of marking things for deletion and stomping on vandals, but there are constructive ways to improve what's here, as opposed to the destroying of clutter. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Categories encourage "Wikipediazation" of Wikibooks. There already is a strong criticism that many Wikibooks end up being merely collections of articles, or that there is a strong "look and feel" from Wikipedia here on Wikibooks.  While I don't have a strong objection to two different Wikibooks "sharing" the same chapter to be developed concurrently, it is an exceptionally rare practice.  I will repeat the often said mantra:  Wikibooks is not Wikipedia.
 * That's not a mantra, it's a truism. Wikibooks doesn't need to go out of its way differentiate itself from other wikimedia projects (Wikibooks is not commons, either). Rejecting every idea that might incorporate wikimedia technologies in a way similar to wikipedia does nothing other than give the project a hostile feel for any well-meaning wikipedian who might want to contribute (and by the way Robert: I reverted your rather nasty edits to the wikibooks-related templates on wikipedia... I would have brought you up on w:WP:ANI (for trolling and violating w:WP:POINT) but you seemed to have disappeared so I let it go). It's time to lose the attitude: the sky is not falling. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Category maintainence eventually fails. Almost all classification and ontological schemes eventually break down, regardless of how you deal with them.  The category system of MediaWiki software certainly is a little more useful than some other systems, but it still has problems in trying to find content.
 * Of course :). The only way to describe a book fully is to photocopy it (or in our case print it out or mirror it). Perfection is an ideal goal to aspire towards, but not a realistic goal to set. It's a step in the right direction though. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

While I am against categorizing each and every page, I do support placing the "Main Page" of each Wikibook into a category so you can try to locate related Wikibooks of similar topics. It is just that once you have already been to that main page, the navigation of content in that Wikibook should be sufficient to then get to wherever you need to go from there and further categorization is no longer necessary.

And example of how categorizations are useful within a Wikibook, the Cookbook is clearly a very good example. But in this case it is more an execption than a classical case of a book with an orderly table of contents or index.

I am not talking about "turning off" categorizations of Wikibooks pages, just that it should be done judiciously and not on absolutely everything in sight. --Rob Horning 17:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of this proposal is to come up with a reasonable and systematic way to categorize. I'm not proposing that things that aren't categorized should be deleted (the more acclimated I've become to the delete buton, the less I like it's existence in some ways), but rather adopting a systems of standards for categorization so that it doesn't end up getting done in 20 different ways. If you don't care about categories, then they won't cause you any harm by being there. If individual users go about categorizing everything without a systematic approach, than the categories will be useless: it's a meta-language for describing books (and therefore doesn't detract from the freedom of authors to write in their chosen style), and since it's a "system-wide" conversation being held in this language, it seems a good idea to talk about ways to adapt it to wikibooks, rather than using it in the wikipedia way. Unless you're willing to ban categorization of every page, it's probably a good idea to come up with a good system for doing it, because sometimes Special:Uncategorizedpages comes in handy (I'm currently trying to empty it far enough so that the last remaining uncatted wikiversity pages will appear, since those that were imported already were auto-categorized through M2wv and its related templates).


 * The last person to try to do this (Jguk) did not discuss it, and ended up employing some unnecessarily convoluted systems that made it very hard for me when I was trying to track down, organise, and in some cases cull the material in the how-to category. The system I came up with took some trial, some error, and a lot of thought about how the category system could be adapted to wikibooks, and how it could be structured in a sensible way that makes it easy to get around both within a particular book as well as between pages of related books... the latter use could be a good path for sweeping up the small stubs into semi-organized books or scrap collections that will be ready for the day that a knowledgeable author comes by who will be able to restructure it and make something great. If there's no way of structuring the stubs, they might as well just be deleted, because no-one will ever find them as they are now. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(arbitrary section break)
I agree with both statements here, to some degree. I do agree with Rob that a haphazard, whole-sale categorization of all pages is not necessary. We do not need to apply categories to pages just so they won't be listed as "uncategorized". However, I also agree with Johnny that categories are used, and when they are applied to pages, they should be applied correctly. Applying categories in a non-helpful way is actually counter-productive, and we are better off not categorizing pages then to categorize them incorrectly or sloppily. With that in mind, I would like to see this proposal become a guideline, as opposed to a policy: Pages do not need to be categorized, but when they are categorized, it should be performed correctly. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh definitely a guideline... I don't think people should be forced to categorize, I just want to have a good category structure defiined so that if people want to categorize, it can be done in a consistent way throughout the project.
 * I do think just adding an unobtrusive category tag is much nicer than adding the big "WHY DIDN'T YOU LIST THIS ON A BOOKSHELF? WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID???" tag :-). Categories are a lot easier, and if there's a good systematic structure, it will provaide a way for more experienced wikibookians to help do some of the organizational work for the new authors. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The bookshelf system has broken down somewhat, and is not being as actively maintained in part because it isn't nearly so prominent of a feature on the main page of Wikibooks any more like it was eariler. There was a presumption that the author of the Wikibook would be best suited to determine where the book ought to be classified with in terms of what bookshelf.
 * There are merits for categories because of the self-organization aspects of them. At the same time (and a major drawback of the category system) is if you want to "push down" a bunch of pages that have been categorized on one level but you want to reorganize them into subcats, it takes an edit on each and every page to make that change.  Something like the bookshelf system only takes a half-dozen edits to make the full change, even if you put the "sub-cats" onto completely different pages.  In extreme situations like I've seen on Commons where I've seen hundreds or even thousands of pages on an overstuffed cat, pushing content into subcats can be the equivalent of a major Wikiproject, with even whole teams of helpers working on it.  And this is something that is difficult or even nearly impossible to automate with a bot.
 * One of the advantages that Wikibooks has in this regard is that the categorization heirarchy is a very late addition to Wikibooks, so there is much more content to try and assess in order to come up with the initial heirarchy. The bookshelf system needs an overhaul, but competing proposals have all but shut down any attempts to realistically fix the situation.  I am, however, trying to point out that the bookshelf and category methods of classifying content are essentially two versions of the same basic idea:  Trying to find some content within Wikibooks that you want to locate.  This was one of the goals I had in mind when I set up Card Catalog Office.  --Rob Horning 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what? I didn't even know we had a card catalog office :). I guess that's just part of why I like the categories: they're familiar, coming from a wikipedian history. I don't think the 10,000 members of a category is much of a problem for us... the only book coming anywhere near that is the cookbook, and the category system of the cookbook is doing exactly what it should, and is actually quite useful (I've used it a couple times when looking for recipes... I don't write there much, but I certainly read there!)
 * I'd really like to redo the bookshelf system too... I'm planning to do an experimental version on the how-tos category one of these days, but I seem always to be otherwise occupied (primarily with writing). I'd like to see them presented in more of a narrative, annotated structure, that asks the reader what they're interested in, and gives them a "blurb" about books that might fit the bill (many of our books have front covers, but when I'm in the bookstore, I look at the back cover and the inner flaps).
 * The how-tos bookshelf is a good example of how I'd like the cats to work: use the categories to organise the materials and make an "outline" for the overall structure of wikibooks, and then go back to the bookshelf and create the narrative. I understand to an extent the resistance to categories: pigeon-holing in some ways seems a mean-spirited approach to such a serious endeavor as a book, and categorising here on wikibooks is not at all the same thing as categorising on wikipedia. But I think the baseline of my suggestion (having the entire book in one category, or for larger books a collection of subcategories within one large category) makes it easy to think about what the book is about, and how it relates to other books. I'm currently having a very hard time deciding how to categorise the various books and stubs related to camping, fishing, wilderness first aid, wilderness survival, etc..... but the important thing is that it's making me think about how all these things fit together, and in the end that will help me write the good narrative on the bookshelf. But the first step is to actually categorise, and I think it's important to have a "baseline standard" for categorising wikibooks as a whole (subcategories within a book category should be left to the authors, and it should be made clear that people who aren't contributors to a particular book shouldn't go around messing with a book's subcategories. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tag a Book"
If all that is needed to categorize all pages in a book is to categorize the cover page/TOC, why are pages like Algorithms/Find_maximum considered uncategorized when Algorithms is? Hoogli (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a bit confusing, isn't it?
 * Each book has its own special, unique category -- a category that has the same name as the book.
 * For example, the special category for the Algorithms book is Category:Algorithms.
 * The page you pointed out is considered "uncategorized" because it has not yet been tagged with the category that tells us which book it is in. --DavidCary (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed by adding  to Algorithms/Find_maximum. --DavidCary (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of book categories
The text currently says "Book categories should be categorized by subject using the same subjects categories as the book (see below)." On the other hand there are also categories such as Category:Languages textbook pages, Category:Computing textbook pages, Category:Engineering textbook pages, and Category:Science textbook pages for this purpose. Moreover, User:Adrignola suggested a classification of book categories using where X is the subject category to separate book categories from subject subcategories. Thus, there are currently three different approaches. Which of them should we use? Do we need consistency at all? Who cares? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I realized that I actually don't understand the current text. Does it mean that each book category should be categorized in all subject categories of the corresponding book title/cover page? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what it means. --dark lama  16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't include organizational categories such as Category:Featured book, Category:Books with print version, etc., does it? Looking at featured books such as Ada Programming, Arimaa, Chess, Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Communication Theory etc. it appears to be current practice to categorize the book category only in one subject category even if the book is categorized in multiple categories. --Martin Kraus (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Those title pages are all overcategorized compared to the title categories, placed into categories that aren't part of the subject hierarchy or that might need to be added to the subject hierarchy, or filed into both a higher level and lower level category in the same branch of the tree. That's yet another thing I was working on correcting. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured books, Books with print version, etc. aren't subject categories though. I don't think categories were considered when deciding to make any of those books featured. How things are categorized is constantly evolving as well. If we stick with how things were rather than focusing on how things should be, the category system will be slow to improve. As things are people do end up working against each other, so writing things down and trying to be consistent can help bring some focus to what the goals are for the category system. --dark lama  18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking about how things should be: I think categories of the kind "X textbook pages" are a good idea for book categories because they avoid that book categories "pollute" the hierarchy of subject categories. When browsing the category hierachy, it is difficult to distinguish between book categories and subject categories. Putting all the book categories away into a few high-level categories of the type "X textbook pages" would avoid this problem. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think "X textbook pages" should continue to be eliminated. The names are grammatically incorrect and isn't what is categorized anyways, should be named "X books", "List of X books", or "X by book categories" at least, but than there are already categories like Category:Library of Congress and Category:Dewey that are more helpful for that purpose. If all book categories are hidden away, then people would be wasting there time searching through related categories only to find what they were looking for wasn't there or where they expected them to be. Categories like Category:Languages would be pointless to have because they would contain a bunch of categories that lead people nowhere. I know that would annoy me and piss other people off. People would fix the situation so that the categories don't lead to dead ends and other people could find what they had difficulty locating, and that is exactly what people have done and what people continue to do. Also when browsing through categories why would anyone really care if a category is a book category, a subject category or something else? I don't think there is any difficulty in distinguish categories anyways because most book categories use title case, while most other categories use sentence case, and there is information like "x cats, y pgs, z files" included with each category. --dark lama  13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Subject categories should certainly include the corresponding books, i.e., cover pages. Thus, they are never empty. (I'm not sure I understand what you tried to say. Actually, I'm not sure whether we refer to the same thing when talking about "book categories". See Categories for the definition I am using.) I usually get to book categories by finding the corresponding cover page in one of the subject categories and then clicking on the book category, which should be listed on the cover page. This should always be possible. When browsing through the subject hierarchy I usually look for books and that means I'm not at all interested in clicking on a book category, which just gives me a list of pages of a specific book. Also, when I look for a book in a subject category, I'll have to look through the list of cover pages of this subject category and all its subcategories. This search is just slowed down when I have to skip all the book categories while going through the subcategories. I assume that many users have difficulties to distinguish book categories from subject categories based on their names. You cannot say whether Category:English is the name of a book category or a subject category. The information about the number of subcategories, pages and files might give you a hint, not more since there are many books which consist of just one page and there are book categories with subcategories for templates etc. --Martin Kraus (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am using the same definition for "book categories" as you are. If I am browsing the category system without being aware of what books exist I am more likely to see the categories before I see what else else is in the category, so I am more likely to find the book that way. If the book isn't in the category than I would have to scroll down to see what pages (book title/cover pages) are in the category, click and load a page and than click and load another page just to look at the corresponding category. Two clicks instead of one, and two pages loaded instead of one. I am not at all interested in having to browse to a book first just to find its book category and there are likely other people who feel the same as both of us. If book categories were kept in separate categories people would not only need to remember to change the categories a book and book category uses, but any book lists as well. For people who have a slow Internet connection, who use a PDA or who use a cell phone to browse Wikibooks, looking at long lists of book categories or having to load multiple pages instead of one, would be a waste of time and bandwidth. If book lists were further divided to keep categories small there would be those to maintain as well. I don't think Wikibooks has enough people willing to maintain such a system to bother with that. I think Wikibooks has enough people willing to use and maintain a simple organizational approach though. Some categories can be renamed to remove the ambiguity associated with it. Like there is Category:English language which has more in it so Category:English can be removed to reduce confusion about which category to put books in. --dark lama  17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You ask if we need consistency and if anyone cares. I've seen book/title categories filed under certain subjects and their title pages filed under other subjects. I've seen subject categories under Category:Main page and under other top-level categories different from where their corresponding Subjects are filed. It wasn't until I pointed out the issue that all the items shown in Subject:Major Subjects were actually filed together under Category:Books by subject. Many subject categories are still filed they way they were organized on the deprecated bookshelves rather than how they're organized in the new Subjects. It's true that a Subject can pull from any Category and the subjects can be organized completely differently than categories and most of the time title case versus sentence case is a moot issue, but I was of the mind that consistency in general is beneficial. I saw book categorization at Maintenance_Projects as a sign that it was a priority, regardless of how we eventually decide to handle the issue you've brought up above. My comment on that issue is in the next paragraph.


 * I was using or  where X is the parent subject category to separate subject subcategories from book/title categories by placing them first in the listing. Book/title categories were being tagged with  or  as usual on their title pages and book/title categories. See Category:Fine arts for a demonstration.  On the issue of "X textbook pages", the guideline you mentioned in your follow-up would contradict the existence of "X textbook pages".  Someone filing their title page in Category:Languages of Africa would likewise file their title/book category in Category:Languages of Africa and not Category:Languages textbook pages.  Thus, I am against "X textbook pages" because they cause inconsistency with the current guidelines at Categories and CCO Resources.  It's a "do as I say, not as I do" situation right now.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Adrignola, please make yourself familiar with Policies_and_guidelines. As far as I know, neither of the pages you cited is a guideline nor a policy. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While its true there not guidelines or policies, the same is true for any argument for the "X textbook pages" approach. In the absence of a policy or guideline there is being bold, compromise and consensus. There are more book categorized in subject categories then there are "X textbook pages" type categories. Only a small percentage of book categories even use the "X textbook pages" approach when they do exist. Any "X textbook pages" categories that do exist are several years old, all created and categorized by one person from what I've seen, and no new ones have been created. I think consensus through people's actions have shown a clear demonstration that the "X textbooks pages" approach is ignored and therefore unwanted. --dark lama  13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Happy classifying! :) --Martin Kraus (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Add a featured book to a Subject: page?
I am from Wikiversity where I constructed a of open source resources on Physics that includes the featured book FHSST_Physics and Subject:Physics.

Oddly, your list of books on Subject:Physics fails to list the featured book FHSST_Physics. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * FHSST Physics is, according to its main talk page, no longer a featured book. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (To clarify: The subject page uses dynamic page lists, so if the book were a featured book it would be listed.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)