Template talk:Overpopulated category

TFD
This template was nominated for deletion, but the result was to keep it. See Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not deleted/Archive/0305 for details. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

New template style
I changed the style of this template around and added links to to Article size, Longpages and Long article layout. I hope this is ok with everyone. Below is an alternative longer style for the template: Important: This article or category is getting very large. If appropriate, please try to move content into subtopical articles or categories. See Longpages and Long article layout for more information. I also changed the background color from #9F9FFF to #CCFFCC. I did this because #9F9FFF is not a "web-safe" color. See Web color for more info. -Hyad 04:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Verylarge versus Verylong
verylarge is for categories; verylong is for articles. -- Reinyday, 01:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Very large is not inherently bad
The topic of large categories is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. There is no inherent reason that large categories must be broken up into subcategories. This was important before there were category table of contents. With a TOC, it is possible to browse through a category of several thousand articles. Subcategories are useful to help people browse through a smaller set of articles, but people may find the larger category more useful if the subcategory divide up the article by relatively irrelevant information (for example, dividing up film directors by nationality). Because of this, I have changed the text of this template. Please join the discussion about this at the categorization page. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Often the subcategories already exist but the articles have not all been allocated
Therefore I am going to change the text. Bhoeble 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, the categories do not need to be depopulated, so the changes you made would not be correct. Whatever the case, there needs to be discussion and a consensus of the people working in the categories. -- Samuel Wantman 06:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back. Bhoeble's version didn't say that articles have to be reallocated, and it is the grunt work of reallocation that is the main priority - usually the uncontroversial main priority - not having a chat on the discussion page. Chicheley 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The description page of the category says that they are large by design. There is which talks about moving articles to subcategories. If a category is very large by design it should get this template. Having a message to suggest "moving" articles to the subcategory defeats the purpose of the template and the category. If this is the wrong template, use. What is the point of having two tags if they have essentially the same message. There are many categories that are very large by design and they do not have to be depopulated. -- Samuel Wantman 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop messing around with a perfectly good system. It is nonsense that the two are the same. Leaving aside the issue of whether the other template should exist at all - and I don't think it should becauuse it is defeatist - this template is for categories which should be cleared asap. It has performed that role perfectly well for a long time, so please stop messing around with it. Chicheley 16:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me the difference between, , and. You seem to be saying that all three of these need to have the same message and be used for the same purpose. Tell me which one I can use to tag categories that are very large by design. I chose this one because that is what the text of the category says, and that has what it has said for some time. All Very large categories, before there were TOC's had to be depopulated. Since then, some of them need depopulating and some of them don't. There should be templates that make this distinction. There are categories that are very large and should not be depopulated (like Category:Living people). All I'm asking for is one of these three redundant templates for use with very large categories that are large by design and no suggestion of depopulating needs to be made. Rather than create a new template, why not use the one who's name and description match what I am trying to do? -- Samuel Wantman 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Three-prong approach to category sorting
  should be used for one-time cleanup;    should be used if people are likely to keep adding to the category; category tagging is pointless for template-driven categories that cannot be recategorized. Cwolfsheep 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarsier
Is there a reason that that picture is included with this template? What's the point? Is it really necessary? Dylan Lake 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template name
Hi. I reverted a WP:BOLD move of this template by to Template:Large category to discuss further. I believe the idea is to make the template name more intuitive by including the word "category." However, the new name omits the word "very," which was arrived at by consensus summarized at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 9. A concern is and was that there is nothing inherently wrong with a large category, and that using that term to mean a category needing to be diffused is inadequate, and that "very large", while again susceptible to the same concern, was an improvement. The obvious compromise is to use "Template:Very large category," but maybe some will find that a bit of a mouthful? If there is any change to the term "very large," this should be coordinated with. --Bsherr (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the suggested Template:Very large category but just thought that "very" was a rather subjective and meaningless word. What one editor regards as large, another editor may regard as very large! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * other suggestions: "overly large category", "over populated category" or "oversized category". the key point is that an editor believes that the category is too large, which is not encapsulated by the word "very" &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are very good suggestions. I'm going to leave notes about this discussion on a few other talk pages and we'll see if there's any more input. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, some history. This template used to be used for both articles that were very large and categories that were very large. There was a separate template, Template:Overpopulated category or Template:Overpopulated for short, for categories only. They were merged as a result of Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/July_2005, and then this template evolved into being for categories only. I think, deferring to history, I would endorse Template:Overpopulated category, which is very close to one of the suggested names arrived at independently. --Bsherr (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I think we are in agreement then :) I will look at reflecting this change in the other places too &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And a note to self and others that conforming changes will be required at Categorization and Template_messages/Category_namespace. --Bsherr (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)