Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 2

Archives from January 2007 - December 2007

Categorization of Activists
Please join in discussion at Category talk:Activists on categorizing activists and more generally people involved in movements.
 * Historical discussion started at Category talk:Animal rights movement (which consolidated activists and other movement-related topics into one category) ... moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights and #Adding my 2cents ... then moved to Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 5. --lquilter 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A task force within WikiProject Categories?
I am interested in creating a WikiProject "task force" (see below) for categorizing uncategorized articles. The goal would be to organize a group of Wikipedians dedicated to knocking off articles in category:category needed. I am interested in finding out if anybody would like to join, is opposed to it, or has any other ideas or opinions. → Ed Gl  05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading WikiProject Council/Guide, it seems like we can create a "task force" in this WikiProject that would deal just with the area of uncategorized articles. I think I'll go with that idea rather than a separate WikiProject, which after some thought doesn't seem like the best option. So would WikiProject Categories be so kind as to create a "task force" for us? ("Task force" is mentioned but not elaborated upon at WikiProject Council.) → Ed Gl  18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Task force seems right. How do we go about setting this up? Pascal.Tesson 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, should it be a section or a subpage? → Ed Gl  00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good solution to me. I believe a subpage is the usual approach:  see for example the WikiProject Biography/Politics and government work group, or the WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force.  Alai 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, what will the subpage be called? WikiProject Categories/????? → Ed Gl  00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe /uncategorized or /uncategorized task force? Stardust8212 01:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like /uncategorized – sums it up pretty well. I'll get started on it. → Ed Gl  03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Categories/uncategorized is now "up and running". Of course, it needs to be more developed, but that will come with time (and help!). → Ed  Gl  03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested
I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions to fit his own understanding of the term - . Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community -. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on | this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think. Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? SilkTork 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the Naming conventions (settlements) would be the proper single place for discussion with pointers to it from other places. Hmains 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) SilkTork 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-profit organizations
If you, like me, have noticed a lot of non-profit organizations in the uncategorized articles, you might want to weigh in on my proposed renmaing of 4 categories to match usual conventions. Non-profit organizations based in Foo. Weigh in at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 9 Scarykitty 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories stuff
I thought those reading this page should be aware of this, this and this - not really sure what is going on, as the language is over my head, but just thought people would be interested. Carcharoth 09:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

A Plea for Help!
I'm a member of the small and recently created WikiProject Cambodia. One of our kind members has done some great work putting together a nice template to place on article talk pages (no userbox yet though, dammit!). This in turn should link to the category. However, this category does not seem to exist - though the project template seems to be on the talk page. The list of articles in our Wikiproject only seems to contain talk pages - not articles, etc. God, I'm confused.

Well, you get the picture - it's a mess. Personally, I know nothing about categories except how to add them to an article. I'm a bear of very little brain and much happier eating honey and working on articles about Cambodia. Could one of you category gurus please help us to fix this mess? Paxse 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is normal for the template to categorize talk pages, since it IS on talk pages. There is currently no way around it.Circeus 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is this normal, it is as it should be. In general, we do not want to have self-referential (meaning a category that only makes sense to Wikipedia editors) categories listed with articles.  Information about which pages are part of a WikiProject is useful information for people in the project and some other active wikipedians.  John Q. Public, who comes to read an article about Cambodia would not be helped by seeing the article listed in the WikiProject category. For this reason, we normally add these categories to talk pages. -- Sam uel Wantman 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I got the category set up for you. Fishal 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are a Prince among Wikipedians for doing so! Thank you muchly. Paxse 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Category structures for U.S. states
There has been an ongoing effort by seemingly one individual to standardize the category structures for U.S. states. This is very much a laudable goal, but I have been concerned that the restructuring/renaming decisions have been unitary in nature. Would anyone be interested in working on a consensus approach to category structures for U.S. states? (I'll join this project if so) Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 08:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could link to some of the categories involved so we can figure out what you are talking about. --&#x2611; SamuelWantman 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Indiana, Category:Ohio, Category:Kentucky and so forth, of all the 50 U.S. states, and the standardized subcategories therein. I didn't realize I was being obtuse. :)  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the fist-tier subcategories, it seems like Buildings and Structures in Ohio and Landmarks in Ohio could be placed under Geography of Ohio. Also, I would think that the Politics and Government categories could be blended somehow.  Fishal 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are very good examples of why I have been thinking that a task force or otherwise interested group could work together to hammer out a consensus structure for U.S. state categories. I'm definitely interested if others are.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone in this project wants to work on this, please leave me a message in my talk. Thanks.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 15:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines
For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course). My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. Bencherlite 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biomolecules
I started a discussion yesterday on categorization of biochemicals and biomolecules, over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology.

In a nutshell, all biochemicals are biomolecules, but not vice-versa. There's no Category:Biomolecules on English WP (and nothing in the deletion log), just a Category:Biochemicals, and around 600 biochemical articles are currently shoved into the overloaded parent cat Category:Biochemistry, with a clearout long overdue.

Yesterday I described the problem on Talk:WPB, but no replies there yet. Today I proposed simply renaming Category:Biochemicals to Category:Biomolecules, which would also bring it into line with cat naming on other European WPs. A sub-cat of that could be created for biochemicals after the rename, if necessary. I figure it won't.

But it's a fairly large category, and I've never renamed a cat with sub-cats before, so I'd be grateful for any advice on the best way to proceed. Any potential problems to watch out for? Thanks, Clicketyclack 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As nobody else has replied... as someone who knows nothing about bio-anythings, your nutshell explanation makes sense and so I suggest you take it to WP:CFD where renaming issues will be handled for you if it goes through. Bencherlite 20:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Clicketyclack 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

human sacrifice as abuse
Surprisingly, unlike torture, human sacrifice is still not categorized as abuse in Wikipedia. There is an ongoing dispute on this subject. (I have also complained here and here.)

Which are the steps to include human sacrifice as abuse?

—Cesar Tort 18:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Two specific points:


 * (1) What can we do so that the template-box that appears in the article abuse includes "human sacrifice" within it? Keep in mind that, though rarely, human sacrifice is still performed, as can be seen in the Human sacrifice article.  It’s an incredible omission that ought to be corrected swiftly.


 * (2) Should the article Human sacrifice in Aztec culture be categorized as Homicide? I believe it should: if you see that box in Homicide you can see that “Human sacrifice” in within it. But the Aztec sacrifice article is not categorized as such. Two months ago there was a bitter dispute in its talk page and consensus was not reached. It seems obvious to me that if human sacrifice is already considered inside the category of Homicide, Human sacrifice in Aztec culture should be one example of an approved categorization.

—Cesar Tort 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a relevant conflict for this WikiProject. You should work it out on the relevant talk pages for those articles. --Hemlock Martinis 19:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Paradox of Category:Reformation
I've been working on Category:Lutheran history. I noticed that Protestant Reformation was part of that cat. That made sense; the Reformation is a part of Lutheran history. Following that logic, I went ahead and put Category:Reformation (of which Protestant Reformation is the main article) into the Lutheran history cat.

However, Category:Reformation has for subcats all of the religious groups that sprang from the Reformation, including Category:Lutheranism. So, following what I believe to be very logical rules of categorization, the category chain now looks like this:

Category:Reformation --> Category:Lutheranism -->Category:Lutheran history --> Category:Reformation

... and so on, perpetually. Is there anything wrong with a "category loop" like the one I've inadvertently created? Fishal 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably OK with 3 levels of it like that instead of something like Reformation > Lutheranism > Reformation. If it really bothers you though, I think the weak link is including the religious groups in the Reformation cat; it's helpful but not totally necessary, IMO. Recury 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even with three categories involvedthe guideline is that loops should be avoided: Categorization.  The solution suggested is to break the loop somewhere by adding "See also Category:whatever ".  You might also include a hidden comment next to it to mention that it shouldn't be readded because of a loop problem.  You can add the point to the talk page too, because everyone looks at category talk pages before changing category pages, of course! ;-)  Wikipedia talk:Categorization may be able to help further.  Bencherlite 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think of two strategies for dealing with loops like these. One is to break the loop at some point and replace it with a manual link to the category by adding "See also: Category:XXX" to one of the category pages instead of making a subcategory.  Another is by splitting one of the categories so that it is not to broad, so that each of the split categories is at either end of the broken chain of cats.  Offhand, I don't know if either will work in this case. Perhaps the break should be between Reformation (as history) and Reformation (as a religious movement?).  I don't know much about this subject. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Reformation is a child cat of Category:Christian history, since it's a part of the history of the Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, (etc.) churches. In this case, best to instead make Category:Reformation another parent of Category:Lutheran history, so readers can see Category:Reformation at the bottom of its category page.  Category:Reformation can also be added as a cat to any Lutheran history articles, as required. Sam's idea of using "See also" could be used along with this. Clicketyclack 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just changed Category:Reformation from child to parent of Category:Lutheran history. Fisha, are you happy with the result?  Clicketyclack 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'll bring it up at WikiProject Lutheranism, but you all have been a great help.  Thanks!  Fishal 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnome Week cleanup drive
I thought that some people here might be interested in this...

Display of category pages
Hello there. Is this the best place for this comment?

I think the way that cat and subcat pages display is counterintuitive and difficult to navigate. Is it possible to generate discussion about this and eventually a change? I am not worried about the sort order, or the criteria for inclusion or exclusion, or indeed most of the way the cat pages work. I think that subcats should open out at a click, indented underneath their parent cats, and should be alpha-sorted within the pages that appear under the same parent cat. (This emulates a directory tree.) The other thing that irritates me is the appearance of header letters in categories with very few entries, such as (taken at random) Category:Music arrangers. Could these letters only appear when the number of entries reaches a certain number, around fifty? The list is always in alphabetical order, after all. There is also Category:String quartets by Dmitri Shostakovich which bizarrely lists the fifteen string quartets in two groups, under the headers "0" and "1". [Later edit: I've altered this by adding # before the number after the pipe in the cat tag, so now they appear under the subheader # on the cat page. This seems to help, although really we don't want a subheader at all on this page. JH(emendator) 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]

Comments?

JH(emendator) 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the Shostakovich quartet articles would be better off in a list than a category, per WP:CLS and WP:CLS. Clicketyclack 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How true, and I'll get to this in the next day or so. But is broad change to the way categories are displayed beyond the scope of this project? JH(emendator) 07:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory categorization proposal
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mandatory categorization of new articles. --Eliyak T · C 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Our own barnstar
Hi, I proposed a barnstar for our Wikiproject. I mainly work at the uncat section so I now that this project does really hard work. I believe we deserve our own barnstar to reward and motivate those who work really hard in this Wikiproject. Anyways, post your comments here-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS naming scheme enigma
There is a proposal in the works for making all album titles include the artist name in parenthesis following the title, ie. Second Genesis (Wayne Shorter album). This is because there is a problem categorizing artist albums into subgenres with our current categorization and naming schemes at WP:ALBUMS. Take the example of Category:Hard bop albums. Per the album's project own guideline, actual albums cannot be placed in that category. So adding Category:Hard bop albums to an album article is not allowed, instead one must create Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums and then make that new category appear in the Category:Hard bop albums category. If you are still with me here, I congratulate you. So I have personally tried to do it according to the guidelines, only to find that it requires way too much work and that there is a much simpler solution. If an album title included the artist name in parenthesis like the example I gave in the opening sentence, then editors could just list an album directly into Category:Hard bop albums without creating a new category for every artist that might have an album that falls into that category. It should be said that often an album that performs hard bop may also have bebop elements, or some other subgenre like free jazz. That means just one artist album may require 3 or even more unique categories just to fall into accordance with WP:ALBUMS guideline. And that is to be done with every musician known to man. It just doesn't make sense. The problem stems from the fact that I can't just place Category:John Coltrane albums in the Category:Hard bop albums category, because not every John Coltrane album is hard bop. I realize that the naming proposal is "controversial", but it seems to me that this is our best solution. Otherwise, WP:ALBUMS is satisfied with mediocre coverage of albums, categorizing Category:John Coltrane albums in Category:Jazz albums, end of story. But some of those albums REQUIRE a breakdown by subgenre to be both honest and accurate in their coverage. Otherwise we cannot even have subgenres, not because albums don't fall under subgenres- but because current rules governing albums will not permit proper categorization in a logical and straightforward fashion. I can tell you personally that I have tried categorizing albums using the Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums method, and I can testify that it is a waste of time and time consuming. It has also been called overcategorization by some users. The current scheme makes it possible for albums to only be placed in the most generic of genres, ie. jazz. If one wants to categorize a Frank Sintra album as a swing music album, they have to create Category:Frank Sinatra swing albums for it to "legally" appear in Category:Swing albums. Note that albums you see that reside at the swing albums category page that appear there by themselves are incorrect per WP:ALBUMS guidelines. A discussion is underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums, and the reception has been anything but enthusiastic. I'm not sure those involved with the discussion have taken the time to even deal with subgenres, therefore they cannot understand the scope of this problem. I thought I'd introduce the discussion here also, to get more input on the matter. Thanks. (Mind meal 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Turkmen/Turkmenistani
What is the format for the adjective of countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etcetera? The reason I am asking this are the categories Category:Turkmen people, Category:Turkmen culture, Category:Turkmen society and daughters. Turkmen refers to Turkmen people, while the categories cover (the citizens of) the republic of Turkmenistan (they are categorized in Category:Turkmenistan), the adjective of which is Turkmenistani. I couldn't find the relevant information in the naming conventions, and I prefer to have some certainty on the guidelines first, before starting an umbrella cfr that would involve dozens of categories. A ecis Brievenbus 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
I could probably hunt around for the reason for this but I'm not sure how. A user is busy adding birds of country x cats to bird articles and formatting so that they are listed on the category page by their type name; thus Blue-spotted Parrot comes under P and Yellow-rumped Fan-parrot comes under F. Why? is this some Wikipedia wide standard? Surely this doesn't aid in finding articles if you have to hunt unalphabetically for the article you want. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Blergh. I had forgotten about this because plants are being switched to Latin names entirely. I say that should be settled by WP:BIRD how you want to use that category scheme. Circeus 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Empty cats
How long do empty cats usually last before deletion? The new Category:Video games with suspected incorrect release dates is currently being populated by a bot checking for the dates 31 December or 1 January. Once each article is fixed it will be removed from the category, so obviously "empty" is this category's ideal state. Are there any rules exempting maintenence cats like this from deletion for being empty? Mi re  ma  re  02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an accepted practice, though I don't recall it being written down anywhere. In some cases I've seen "please don't delete" comments added to the category to that effect (for example, some of the "uncategorised articles by topic" categories).  Perhaps we should add an explicit caveat to the empty-cat CSD clause.  However, no-one will object if a category is recreated if it's mistakenly deleted on those grounds.  Alai 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

'elp!
I have a page that I am determined to categorise, but i can't ...really figure out where it should go. And I'm also pretty sure that no-one EVER looks at the talk page of Category:Fictional locations neither. But hey, what can you do. Bigg City Port is the fictional location of the children's television series TUGS. Just have the small problem of figuring out where the hell it should go. Any suggestions? They don't have "Category:Fictional harbours"... So please help! --SteelersFan UK06 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no relevant subcats, it should go in a broader category, in this case I would think Category:Fictional towns and cities and Category:Ports and harbours. Maybe it's time to create a Category:Fictional ports and harbours, which would be categorized under Fictional towns and cities, and under Ports and harbours.  Fishal 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template categories
Honestly, I didn't know where I should post this, but I need some input.

I was going to ask to rename Category:Wikipedia templates to Category:Wikipedia template categories, since it should only have categories in it, and the misnomer causes confusion and templates themselves to end up there. But then I saw Category:Template categories as a sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia templates. This category's true to its name and only includes categories, but there is no other organization within the top-level, unlike Category:Wikipedia templates. They can't really be merged, since they're both top-level with different ways of organizing within.

Both these cats contain all templates with no distinction between a "template" and a "Wikipedia template." Based on the name I would think "Wikipedia templates" would be any template related to the innerworkings or community of Wikipedia (WikiProjects banners, talk page messages, userboxes, barnstars, etc.), but it includes any template. So re-using that name would be confusing.

I have no idea how to go about this. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -Rocket000 22:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention Category:Templates for deletion is now Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion. I don't know why this changed, but whatever the reason, maybe it's a good reason to also get rid of Category:Template categories. -Rocket000 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages using deprecated templates
Hi, I'm encountering a rather perplexing problem that I can't seem to figure out. My user page, talk page and main edits page  falls under "Category: Pages using deprecated templates" for some reason. There is a linking section common to the said pages but removing it still does not solve the "Category: Pages using deprecated templates" problem. Moreover the section exists in both my Sandboxes and they do not fall under "Category: Pages using deprecated templates".

I used personal templates for sections common to all the userpages before but requested for speedy delete; my request was accepted and I have no templates under my name now. Still I can't seem to shake "Category: Pages using deprecated templates" for reasons beyond my understanding.

Kindly help me out on this. With Regards, Havelok 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This template would appear to be the problem: click It's marked as deprecated. Does that help? BencherliteTalk 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It does help on my Main edits page but removing it from my userpage has had no effect, and I can't figure out why my talk page is listed under "Category: Pages using deprecated templates" as it didn't have that template in the first place. Thank you for replying and taking the time to help me out, Havelok  19:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking this to your talk page, to save clogging up here. Others feel free to pitch in there. BencherliteTalk 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Catheads
I've noticed some pages have a "cathead" instead of a group of categories, which appears to generate a given sequence of categories. I'd like to create one of these but I don't know where to start. Can someone point me in the right direction please? Gatoclass 03:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Energy articles
It seems like almost all wikiprojects categorize the talk pages of articles, rather than the articles themselves, presumable to seperate the 'front end' (for readers) and 'back end' (for contriburs) of Wikipedia. However, in Category:WikiProject Energy articles many article pages are present, is this something that should be changed? I also asked about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Energy. Arthena(talk) 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It should definitely be changed. IMO Categorization is quite clear on this, "housekeeping" categories like this should go only on article talk pages and not on the articles themselves. Bryan Derksen 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Big mess
Category:Application software is a mess. Notice how there is now only one article in the category. Help! --Eliyak T · C 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages
A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at WikiProject Contents and related projects such as WikiProject Lists of basic topics, WikiProject Lists of topics, WikiProject Glossaries, WikiProject Portals and WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Category redirect template

 * Initial message and reply copied here from Template talk:Category redirect

These changes to category redirect were reverted by User:Eliyak on the grounds that "changes apparently were not discussed; and are probably not such a great idea." OK, so let's discuss. The changes did two things: (1) changed the current garish-looking box to a more standardized message-box format, (2) changed the text to note that most recategorization is done automatically (currently by RussBot). There's no need to encourage users to spend their time doing manual recategorization when it's going to be done automatically anyway. I don't see why either of these should be a big deal, but anyone who wants to comment please do so. --Russ (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A message template is obviously not intended for bots. It is intended for people to read, and this is one that especially needs to be noticed, so it is quite prominent. Let's not change it on the basis that people will not read it- it is intended only for the people who do read it.
 * Also, the template standardization via ambox was only for article templates, not category templates. A seperate process took place for talk page templates. One for category templates never really got off the ground. A reason not to use ambox for categories is precisely this: ambox was designed to make template messages less obtrusive on articles. Categories, however, are more of a back-end side of Wikipedia. This template in particular is especially important to be prominent, since it is to help users avoid the mistake of improper cateorization. If it is not readily apparent that the category does not exist at this apparent location, mistaken categorization there will become increasingly rampant. --Eliyak T · C 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, as long as there is a bot (or bots) that moves pages out of the redirected category into the correct one, there will not be rampant miscategorization.  Second, if you think the "info" style of notice box is too weak, we could use a "warning" style instead.  --Russ (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has commented here in a week, I have opened a formal Request for Comments on this issue. Please participate in the the RFC discussion. Russ (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)