Template talk:Uncategorized/Archive 2

Usage on frontpage
editprotected uncategorized It says no to subst it then the next example shows it. Peachey88 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not subst: this template.
 * The following code is the recommended use; it will produce the uncategorized template with an appropriate date as its parameter:
 * It is correct although perhaps confusing. Do not use subst on the template uncategorized, but do use use subst on the template dated. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement
With the revamping of our templates, I think it's time to revisit the placement of this template. It was usually placed at the bottom, were categories are; but shouldn't we now aim to put it at the top, where it can stack with other templates, and where 99% of users expect them to be?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. A lack of categorization has no direct impact on an article's quality.  Therefore, it isn't necessary to bring this issue to readers' attention before they've even had an opportunity to read the article (and better understand what it's about).  I also reject the premise that "99% of users expect" this tag to be at the top.  The longstanding practice is to place it at the bottom, and that's precisely where users look to find the categories.  —David Levy 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit request...
The title line should be bold to match other article templates. In a similar vein, it also makes sense to add to the date parameter so it has (MONTH YEAR) at the end of the "Please categorize this article to list it with similar articles." text. I'm not sure how to go about implementing this into the current template and since it is currently protected, it is kind of a pain to test it out... regardless it doesn't seem like it is a terribly hard change and I'm sure you can re-use code from other templates that are out there... Paul C/T+ 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the correct code:

Please categorize this to list it with similar.
 * text = This  is uncategorized.

Paul C/T+ 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres ( t .l ) 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Template:Articleissues
Would anyone object to this template being added to Template:Articleissues? There seems to be some concern there that such an addition might garner some objection, since uncat is supposed to be placed at the bottom of an article, while the articleissues template is always placed at the top. Would this actually be a problem for anyone? Thanks for your input.  Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Uncategorized should be placed at the bottom and Articleissues on the top. It is better to give specific instructions to editors in order to help them improve the article. Having uncat at the end serves this purpose. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorized but needs more categories?
What about articles that have at least one category, but clearly need more? Is there any template for them? Richard001 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Use Cat improve. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting this at the top
Is there any serious objection to putting this at the top? I guess if the article doesn't have any other issues, then there's really no pressing reason to have it at the top. However, when there are other issues, it seems illogical not to include this in with the others when consolidating them with the articleissues template, even though articleissues does go at the top, not the bottom. Any comments?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the bottom is more practical. It's not so important that it warrants a huge banner at the top, plus it is real easy to remove a bottom tag when adding categories. If the template is at the top it causes more work. Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it enough of a deal to prevent it being added to articleissues? I've seen several editors placing it at the top already.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't added categories in aeons, but when I did, it really was handy to simply go to the last section of a page, do a section edit, add categories and remove the tag. When placed on the top you have to edit the complete page, just a huge waste of time. Also, editors have been really good to keep the backlog down on uncategorized. Since the last year or so no uncat tag has been on an article for more than two months. Garion96 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good record. At WP:O we've got a 5-year backlog to work on!  I can see how handy it would be to have the tag at the end, though.  Although, I must ask, how often are the articles so long that it makes a difference?  Maybe I'm just biased because I'm mostly looking at orphans, which tend to pretty short anyway, but the uncatted articles I've seen have all been able to fit in one screen, so it's not that big a deal.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From 5 random clicks I already found three articles in Category:Uncategorized from May 2008 on which is practical to have the tag at the bottom. Chronic care management, Architecture of Complexity and Bhakti Investama. The majority might be small articles, but I don't see any benefit of top placing. Garion96 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I usually place the tag at the top of the page, but does it really matter that much? Top or bottom, whichever is easier at the time, seems reasonable to do.  It would seem a colossal waste of effort to go through pages and move a tag from one section to another, or to chase after editors and say, "You put the tag in the wrong place!"  Or in other words, we could just say, "Place the tag at top or bottom, depending on what is most convenient/logical" and AGF for anything else. --Elonka 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree but a discussion is never bad. I wasn't even thinking of editors placing the tag but of Addbot which places the uncat tag automatically on the bottom. Garion96 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add af.wiki iw
Please add af:Sjabloon:Ongekategoriseerd. Thanks! --Eivind (t) 05:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I figured out how to do it after all. --Eivind (t) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

confusion
other template (Template:Uncategorized template) has the same way of using as this one, i guess this template should be used for articles not templates --Osm agha (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed usage change
Firstly, allow me to be perfectly blunt: I hate this tag. Adding a category to an article only takes a few seconds, it seems to me it would be better in 95% of cases to just do that instead of adding the tag. However, I'm guessing I won't find a lot of support for just doing away with it and asking editors to just add a category themselves, so I have another idea. What if this template was changed to a category in it's own right : "uncategorized articles". This would avoid clutter on the page for what is really a relatively minor problem, and persons wanting to add cats can just go to the category's page and take their pick. What do you think? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous similar discussions are | here and in the archive of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget it's not always humans adding the tags, i do believe there are bots that tags articles/images/templates ect as well. Peachey88 (Talk Page 07:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Style updates
I've made some tweaks to the template styling in the new sandbox to match the proposals at WT:TC. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-enabling as I've tweaked it again to remove the verb "categorize", which helps make the template less US-centric. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article issues templates and uncategorized tag
If an article includes an article issue template (e.g. wikify, COI, deadend ) etc, should one add systematically uncategorized if there is no category other than the ones in these templates? -- User:Docu

This no longer needs.....
to be listed on the category needed page. Can someone fix it so it isn't there anymore? Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

sorted stubs
Should this template be added to articles which already have a sorted stubtype? These all assign categories, which have parent categories within the general tree of categories, so the article is categorised by being given a sorted stubtype. PamD (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

decategorised pages
I saw an example today where a vandal had wiped the references and categories from an article, and a bot came along shortly afterwards and added this tag. Someone then recategorised the article, eventually an unreferenced tag was added, gradually some references were added, and it ended up taking months to edit the article back to where it had been, where a simple revert would have sufficed.

There isn't very much we can do to prevent unfortunate situations like that. However it does seem to me that this template was written with brand new articles in mind, and the wording—"The template has not been added to any categories—doesn't apply well to the situation where an article has been decategorised by a vandal. Would it be possible to reword it so as to encourage the good people who follow along behind the bots to check the edit history before proceeding with categorisation?

Hesperian 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ADD A CATEGORY TO THIS TEMPLATE
please place this template in the WikiProject Categories. Mephiston999 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the placement issue
So it's been a while since this was discussed. With tagging tools like Twinkle and Friendly now available as gadgets, the use of automated tagging has gotten very common; those tools always add cleanup tags to the top of the page, and have the ability to clump them into a multiple issues tag where appropriate. Adding tags at the bottom of the page might have been common once, but more often than not I see historically bottom-dwelling tags like nofootnotes and uncategorized at the top of pages now; I think this really should be the default for all cleanup tags at this point. As such, I'm thinking of removing the suggestion that this belongs on the bottom, and then proposing it be added to multiple issues for use by the gadget taggers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I use HotCat to categorize articles, and I'm sure others do too. In case you don't know, HotCat adds the desired category and removes the "uncat" template. As long as HotCat would be able to remove the "uncat" in the multiple issues template, then I'm fine with this. We may need to get the creator of HotCat to tweak the code a little, but it seems to be relatively trivial to give the tool this added functionality. ~EdGl  !  16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see them more often at the bottom. Plus it makes categorising by hand, which many editors still do, so much easier. I don't see much benefit at placing this tag at the top of the page. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying to both of you: I wasn't actually aware that HotCat was savvy of this template (cool), but this still seems like a hack around the problem rather than addressing it directly. On en-WP we deploy categories at the bottom of articles by convention, rather than because it's really necessary: I know that the MediaWiki instance run on Wikia abstracts categorisation away from the main content pane entirely, for instance. As such, I don't think it makes sense to treat categories as "an extra section at the bottom of articles", as if we were tagging a section. Categories apply to the whole article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What problem? I don't see it as a problem that categories are at the bottom. I don't think it's necessary or beneficial to have them at the top. Since they are at the bottom (by convention) it makes it easier to have the template there as well. Editors that way don't have to edit the whole article but can add categories and remove the template in the same section edit. Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is not to move categories to the top (which isn't really going to work at this point) but to acknowledge that they only live at the bottom for historical, technica reason; they aren't part of the normal page content, and as such it doesn't really make sense to tag the bottom of the article because normally in-page tags refer specifically to content in that section. Editors can already edit page categories without having to go into full-page edit mode by using HotCat; this is in fact the only way to add categories on Wikia, and makes sense from a usability point of view. Putting cleanup tags at the bottom of articles make them less obvious, which increases the time it takes to get them notices and fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So this template should be at the top to acknowledge that this categories are at the bottom for historical technica reasons? Also, I think for most editors not HotCat but simply the normal old fashioned way is the way to add categories. I think the uncat at the bottom is obvious enough, it also seems to work quite well since there only is a two month backlog with uncategorised pages (that's not much). I just don't see any benefits placing them at the top and but do see some (minor) benefits in keeping the tag at the bottom. Garion96 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since categories are placed at the bottom of an article, I think it is fine to keep this template there as well. But I don't care much either way. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It should not be on top because it's not an issue with the article itself, unlike the other tagged issues which need to alert the reader before the article. There is no reason to have a banner above the introduction, the most valuable real estate on the page, especially to a non-editor. Whoever finds uncat an issue will be someone looking at categories, which are at the bottom. - Skullers (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about new tagging bot
This message is being sent to inform you of a community discussion regarding a bot proposal. The bot would automatically tag new articles with matinence tags, such as this template. More details can be found at the proposal. Thank you,  Ⓢ ock   16:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BUG! Incorrect Spelling when Listed on Category Pages.
I've located a small problem that occurs when this template is placed on a category page. As shown by this revision of Category:Joint Venture Schools, when this template is placed on a category page, this template says: "'This category has not been added to any categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar categorys.'" This should instead say "categories". I believe the problem stems from using a pagetype template followed directly by an S. Can someone please make it so that it automatically corrects for this when it's on a category page? This page may be helpful. Thanks. --vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 21:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Stubs
This is an iner-editor communication which does not give any useful information to the causal reader of an article, so this information should be placed on the talk page, as they are there for precisely such editor to editor communications.

Further as most stubs are in a category adding it to stubs is wrong as they are already in a category. -- PBS (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lost cause. There are so many templates which should be on the talk page. As much as I wish, it will never happen. This template at least isn't there for very a long time. Regarding stubs, the goal is that stubs will turn into full articles, then the stub template will be removed it won't have any categories. Garion96 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Will be replaced by a bot?
The article states that will be replaced by a BOT. But since Template:Uncat redirects to Template:Uncategorized, will also be replaced? —Kri (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The documentation page says that a bot will add a date to Template:Uncat. Yes, the same will be done for Template:Uncategorized. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Can someone have this so it is like the category improve template, so it has categories by month and year. That way to cut down on the amount of articles in the parent category of Category:Uncategorized pages. So they can be easier to find, and help clear backlog quicker. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is already the case. It is also in the documentation, but I will update it a little. Debresser (talk)
 * Oh, okay thank you. I didn't notice that. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Overuse
One of the most overused templates. I understand if a bot is adding this, but otherwise skip this step and just add a category. Consider the "touch it once” principle – less touches means more efficiency. This template turns one touch (add category) into two touches or more (add template, add categories, remove template). Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2018
Per a recent discussion at Talk:Main Page, please add the following text to the beginning of this template:  in the second line after the comment. You will also need to add  on the second-to-last line after. The purpose of this edit is to prevent this template from doing anything when accidentally added to the main page by scripts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)