Category talk:Hidden categories

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Top[edit]

This is stupid. I like being able to click the bottom of a file and find similiarly tagged images. -Nard 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can make these categories visible with a setting at Special:Preferences (Miscellaneous). Nevertheless a talk regarding the use of this magicword might be appropriate. Regards, Code·is·poetry 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In fact it is in Special:Preferences (Appearance). May be it has changed ? --GaAs11671 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed use of Hidden categories[edit]

I am rather confused about which type of categories suppose to be hidden, and could not find any related discussions. My understanding is that it was meant to contain maintenance categories like:

  1. categories related to license templates like Category:CC-BY-SA-2.0-ES
  2. categories related to informative templates like Category:Attribution metadata from licensed image or Category:Media with locations
  3. maintenance categories like Category:Malformed deletion requests
  4. user specific categories like Category:Archives by D-Kuru or Category:Files by ABF

I do not think it should include categories related to:

  1. camera used like Category:Taken with Canon EOS 40D
  2. software used to create the image like Category:Created with Hugin
  3. photographers (even if not famous) like Category:Photographs by Marek and Ewa Wojciechowscy
  4. species like Category:Jacobaea vulgaris or Category:Species of Asteraceae
  5. sources or collections category:Images from the Library of Congress or category:Images from the New York Public Library

The last group contains categories that outside users might want to search by or Wiki articles link to. Such users might not know that they have to change their preferences to see all the categories an image belongs to. I can also see that image categorized only with categories from the second group is likely under-categorized. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have made change in preferences : "Users can choose to see hidden categories in a separate "Hidden categories" list, by checking "Show hidden categories" in the "Appearance" section of Special:Preferences.". --Adam majewski (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving to "Categories with HIDDENCAT"[edit]

We have room. We can be more explicative. Better "Categories hidden with HIDDENCAT magicword". By the way, IHMO--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing hidden about it if a categories is only used on subcategories. Sample: Category:Photographs by Sergio D'Afflitto only includes subcategories and it thus visible everywhere. Commons:Categories#Categories marked with "HIDDENCAT" attempts to explain this. We could use "Categories marked with HIDDENCAT". --  Docu  at 08:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This needs more discussion and advertising (which I've now done). For one thing, we should maintain consistency between the category name (defined in MediaWiki:hidden-category-category) and the category label (used when listing hidden categories on a File or Category page; defined in MediaWiki:Hidden-categories). Rd232 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite unclear what this should be about here - please make a new, clear section with a statement what this is about for such a broad request for comments. Why should everybody who is queried to come to this important(?) discussion first try to figure out what it is about? --Saibo (Δ) 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, how's the addition at the top? Rd232 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That is more like I would have expected. Still don't see the advantage, though. Yes we coudl bring all page source code to its name... but.. em... ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 04:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not about the source code :) but the accuracy of the naming. Because the user settings on Commons were changed a while ago so that by default hidden categories are visible, calling them "hidden" is not really correct. Rd232 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to know - I was not aware that they are not hidden unless a user makes that setting in their prefs. Btw: these "small" cats are even named "Hidden categories" by the mediawiki interface on the page's footer. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the "label" I mentioned above, defined in MediaWiki:Hidden-categories. As I mentioned in the blockquote below, there is an exception in the English interface, where on category pages classified in HIDDENCAT categories the label is "Non-topical/index". Rd232 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

{{rfc}}

Should Category:Hidden categories (which contains categories marked with HIDDENCAT - see COM:HIDDENCAT) be renamed to something like Category:Categories marked with HIDDENCAT? The reason would be that these categories are generally not hidden, but either presented separately, with the label "Hidden categories" (on file pages classified in HIDDENCAT categories) or with the label "Non-topical/index" (on category pages classified in HIDDENCAT categories) or no differently than others (HIDDENCAT categories are not distinguished from ordinary ones when viewing their parent category). If the category is renamed, the label should perhaps be changed to match.

Rd232 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it's worth pointing out that since November 2010 these categories have [for users with interface language English] been labelled "Non-topical/index" when shown at the bottom of File Category pages. This non-standard naming scheme is due to the edit request at MediaWiki talk:Hidden-categories, which relies on the "discussion" at Commons_talk:Categories/Archive_2#.22Hidden.22_categories_that_are_not_hidden, which consists of Docu agreeing with himself. Well, anyway, the change has stuck, so if we're happy with that, maybe we should use something like Category:Non-topical/index categories. Rd232 (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

important addendum: the "non-topical/index" phrasing mentioned above only applies in English. This phrasing has not been carried over into any other languages (eg MediaWiki:Hidden-categories/de), as far as I'm aware of. Rd232 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Dunno. "Hidden categories" seems fine to me; they are hidden as much as possible (there is only one level of HIDDENCAT, right?). I suppose you could have subcats for "Non-topical categories" and "Index categories", but it seems as though this category is for any others which make use of the HIDDENCAT feature (for whatever reason), which by its very name suggests that "Hidden categories" is an appropriate name, and has a particular meaning for MediaWiki. Unless there are alternative ways to "hide" categories, the current name is just fine to me. The reasons for using the technical feature can change over time and are subject to policy; I'd rather not keep renaming or relabeling to keep up. I also don't see the need for the different labeling on the bottom when it comes to Category vs other types of pages -- it seems like the exact same function, and labeling differently can actually be a little confusing. So... unless there is a possible different use for "Hidden categories" which should not be confused with categories which use HIDDENCAT, I don't see the real need for a change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that, including that having different labels for the same thing in different places is potentially confusing. However, you said "I'd rather not keep renaming or relabeling"; that's fair enough, but if the proposed renaming based on the HIDDENCAT parameter is done, then changes in usage of that parameter don't need to result in renaming. The problem is (as you suggest), that "HIDDENCAT" itself is very suggestive of "hidden category", so exposing this technical term in the category name and/or interface perhaps doesn't help that much in terms of getting away from the "hidden categories" concept, which is an issue because the categories are mostly not hidden. Rd232 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This change doesn't seem like something that is really needed, but in the interest of being as clear as possible, I'd be fine with it. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the category name doesn't matter that much (if that's your meaning); but the category label (used at the bottom of pages) does. Maybe it doesn't matter if the category name is consistent with the category label, but I think the consistency is an issue. Rd232 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two things to consider:

  1. The fact that these aren't hidden on category pages is a bug (possibly). If that is ever fixed then hidden categories would indeed be completely hidden unless one changes their preferences. Similarly to "deleted", the terminology should be reader (not maintenance worker) -centric.
  2. The "hidden" naming is deeply established across Wikimedia wikis and has thoroughly penetrated documentation, template logic, and probably some bots/tools.
I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. The non-topical/index thing is just a interface text string so that can be treated differently than a functional category name. Also, it's not like we can change the magic word. Rocket000 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see what we will win by renaming "Category:Hidden categories" to "Category:Categories with HIDDENCAT". Besides, I would promote the use of the {{Hiddencat}} in lowercase, as this gives us more flexibility and avoides troubles with bots and mistyped/lacking underscore characters. --Foroa (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Rocket000's comment considers the following:
  1. The categories are visible at Commons by default, whether in category namespace or not. Thus "Hidden" is particularly misleading. This even seem to have thoroughly confused Rd232 in previous discussions. I doubt we have any other category name at Commons that strays so far from reality.
  2. The comparison with other WM sites fails not only because the default is different, but also because categories are used differently here (in file and category namespaces not namespace 0) and serve primary navigation in content (other sites often use navigation templates for that).
Anyways, if there is a better suggestion than the current name, I think everybody is open to that. --  Docu  at 13:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Huh? They are not visible by default... Log out and look at an image page (or anything else), you will not see hidden categories listed in the category bar. The only time you will see them is when you are viewing a parent category. Hidden categories are listed just like non-hidden ones in the category section. This most likely is a bug and that was what I was pointing out.
  2. The type of content in them doesn't matter but how they are treated on a technical level, which is the same on all wikis. It's built in to the software. I mentioned how established (through templates, documentation, other projects, bots, scripts, etc.) the current (and canonical) name is not as a potential roadblock but as a reason why I don't think it's worth it.
It's a just bad idea in my opinion. Rocket000 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you give me the url of an image you are referring to? I agree that some categories on files may be prefixed with "Hidden categories:", but they are visible, not hidden. --  Docu  at 07:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoa... when did that change? They are shown by default. That's not the default configuration. The English Wikipedia (I would assume most others) do not show them. We didn't use to. Ok then, that changes things. Saying they're "hidden" when they're perfectly visible to even logged-out users is just silly. At the very least, we should make it say "Non-topical/index:" for all pages, including the File namespace (why was that omitted?). I'm still not sure about changing the actual category name... I guess the question is why were they made visible by default in the first place? I know we "hide" a lot of non-maintenance categories that general users may be interested in, but I rather consider "unhiding" these categories (and making a new type of semi-hidden status for them) rather then defeating the whole purpose of HIDDENCAT. All it does now is organize the links in the category bar and make some smaller. That's very useful, but I still would prefer being able to completely hide the real maintenance categories. Forgive me for telling you to log out and everything when I didn't even check myself. 108.74.157.253 18:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That's me, btw. Forgot to log back in. :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose, HIDDENCAT is clearly destined for categories which should be somehow hidden. "Hidden categories" is the best name for the category of such categories, independently on the current mode of the hiding (and independently of the fact which types of categories will be tagged with this). It is unwanted to misuse HIDDENCAT for different purposes. Is somebody want to group some type of categories (e. g. some of standard meta categories) in similar way, he should propose a new, different magic word. As I can see, the proposer of this renaming is who repeatedly tried to hide some standard topical meta categories (by name etc.). I support the opinion that meta categories "by name" or "by number" are the same type of topical meta categories as meta categories by other criteria (by number, by country...) and shouldn't be tagged as "hidden". --ŠJů (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If we accept that categories tagged with HIDDENCAT shouldn't be really hidden but only distinguished and separated, we should propose new specific magic words instead of HIDDENCAT. We can start with __NONTOPICAL__ for nontopical categories and __FLATLIST__ for non-topical flat list categories. They can have either quite identic functionality or can fill special categories instead of this one. I believe, it is not difficult to implement them into mediawiki. However, topical "flat categories" shouldn't be tagged with such words but integrated into the basic category system. --ŠJů (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, possibly we can handle those categories differently, though new magic words are not a popular option with developers, so another way would be better if it can be found, especially if it doesn't need any developer action at all... Or if it does, then some system for more generally controlling category formatting would be preferable (eg for Category X, all categories in it are displayed with CSS MediaWiki:Category-X-CSS on File and category pages)... I did a while ago draft a proposal on this general issue [1] and tried discussing it with Docu, to no avail, which rather deflated any interest in pursuing it further. Rd232 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Somehow I doubt "should be somehow hidden" is a pertinent argument when discussing a category name for this category. Its subcategories aren't currently hidden so we need to find a better name for this.
      The type of categories we mark with hiddencat is obviously important, but as the suggested name doesn't describe this, we don't need to focus on this in this thread. --  Docu  at 10:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No comments for a week, and the discussion is rather messy, and the responses fairly negative, so I've removed the RFC tag. If anyone wants to relaunch it more clearly, that may be worth a try, but I wouldn't be optimistic on that getting consensus either. And of course further discussion is possible (but in this backwater of Commons, not likely without further advertising). Rd232 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have closed the CFD as it had no real meaningful discussion. I will remove the move request if there is no further discussion in this place for a while. For a general discussion about the usefulness and the naming of this category, I would suggest opening a new CFD. --rimshottalk 15:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)