Template talk:Category redirect

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Who made this so freaking ugly!!!! :/ please prettify again. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pfctdayelise and I agreed that the color scheme using the pumpkin color was garish and unprofessional. In its present format (border blue, background color light blue (background-color:#e0e0ff), and header color darker blue (#ccccff), the warning is impossible to ignore, but not due to tastelessness. -Mak 08:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 When to use? 2 Redirect? 3 Link to Template:Bad name? 4 Extra colon in link to category when bad name should be used 5 Wording 6 New idea 7 Change of 17 04 2009 8 __NOINDEX__ 9 Problems with apostrophe ?

[edit] When to use?

I am totally confused by the usage note, which seems to require intimate knowledge of Wikipedia. What is the recommended way to tag a category that you don't want populated? --InfantGorilla 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is fine. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Why can't you make just a simple redirect and have the bots move the pictures? --Botev 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because if it's a simple redirect, people will keep putting stuff in the wrong cat, and you (ideally) don't want the bots to constantly have to work on this. Superm401 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I fail to see why the tag {{category redirect}} should be more efficient in preventing people from putting the stuff into the wrong category than the #redirect command is. Both clearly indicate that one category name is preferred and should be used while the other isn't preferred and should be avoided. --Botev 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Either the cats should be read only or there should be a bot which changes the cats in the meda from time to time. There must be a solution, the situation now is more than unhappy.--Avron 07:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, {{Category redirect}} does have the advantage of standing out more to the user. But mainly, I think the software should handle plain category #redirects better. Superm401 - Talk 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally oppose to this "solution", it makes life at Wikimedia Commons harder. In Germany we call that "Warum einfach, wenn es auch kompliziert geht?" —→ #redirect category... is much easier and it saves that extra click (if you're working with categories the whole day, it get's annoying). I'm wondering if all that Bots do that right. Do they act upon any convention referring to this topic? --Mattes (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

People tend not to notice the little "Redirected from..." in the corner, which means they keep putting things in the wrong category. Superm401 - Talk 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Template:Bad name?

Hello, why this template links to template Template:Bad name? It is intended for files only, isn't it? --Martin Kozák 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been changed to point to Template:Duplicate. However, this template isn't intended for cats either. Superm401 - Talk 10:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to make a {{bad cat name}} tailored towards badly named cats no one else is likely to use. It will read something like:

This category has an incorrect name, which is unlikely to be used in the future. The correct category is Category:newname. All items in this category should be recategorized in Category:newname, then this category should be deleted.

Superm401 - Talk 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, you misinterpreted "Category redirect" - main intention was, to redirect local-interwiki habits to our commons habits: it is to tell where a specific category is to find here, not that its got a "bad name" (as missing plular form) but that there is no sense to "duplicate" categories under different names --W!B: 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know {{Category redirect}} isn't for "bad names". However, the template currently says, "misspellings unlikely to be used by other people" should have {{duplicate}}. But Template:duplicate is meant for images, not cats. I'm proposing we make Template:bad cat name, and mention it here in place of duplicate. Superm401 - Talk 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ah I understand, You're right, but woudn't it be easier to adjust Template:duplicate to fit on *all media* (not only images, but sounds, ..) including cats - as we do not separate deleting media and categories, there is no use separating deletion tags (see Commons:Deletion guidelines#Categories

Category redirect is different, because it implies expicitely to keep that name of a cat, but not to fill it with contents.. a case not appearing with media-files.. --W!B: 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think creating a new template is better in this case. That way, there's a perfect fit for the situation. I've mentioned this discussion at Template_talk:Duplicate#Template:Duplicate_and_redundant_categories. Superm401 - Talk 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extra colon in link to category when bad name should be used

Hi, Could an admin correct {{bad name|:Category:correct category name}} into {{bad name|Category:correct category name}} Thank you, -- Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Greetings,

This is a very helpful template.

Part of its wording reads "This tag should be used on existing categories that are likely to be used by other editors, even though the "real" category is elsewhere.". That wording implies to me "...used and left on existing categories...".

If that is correct then the wording should be amended to more precisely reflect the intent.

It is certainly true that in many cases it is advantageous to keep empty redirects with this template in them as they can often:

1. be an aid to finding the correct category for a file
2. provide a warning that an apparently "obvious" category is not in fact the correct (consensus) one.

-Arb. (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in the discussion on User_talk:Rocket000#.7B.7Bcategory_redirect.7D.7D, some folks find redirects evil and they are indeed a nightmare in terms of system management, learn bad habits to the users and give sometimes wrong information to the users. I plan to user a wider debate on the problematic within a couple of days. --Foroa (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New idea

There's some recent talk about cleaning up empty categories. These have been piling up thanks to this template. Well, soft category redirects in general (and disambig cats). They make Special:UnusedCategories kinda useless. I was thinking of ways to make the software not think these are empty like it does for real redirects. At first i thought of simply adding a random page to every redirected category. Easy to do (just paste a list of categories on some page), but that wouldn't be pretty. I thought of a way to "trick" the software into thinking they were hard redirects (the pages would start with #REDIRECT but intentionally be broken and hidden with CSS) but that's also messy and would ruin our other lists. So here's my idea: let's have this template categorize the categories in themselves. It makes them no longer empty and doesn't interfere with the real categories. To keep them being considered empty to us, we would make the template check for {{PAGESINCAT}} > 1 instead of {{PAGESINCAT}} != 0. Should we try it? Rocket000(talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to change Special:UnusedCategories not to count categories that are in Category:Category redirects, but this is a decent interim solution. Superm401 - Talk 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that would be ideal but I doubt that will happen since there would have to be a change in the MediaWiki software itself and Category:Category redirects is just a normal user-created category. If there was a software solution, it would most likely a magic word or something we add to any page to have it stay out of the relevant maintenance report(s). Rocket000(talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change of 17 04 2009

When looking in Category:Glacier, the latest change did not bring much relief. --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to fix that not empty bug. It was to clear the unused category report. Rocket000 (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your test with glacier failed because Hotcat dynamically changed the redirected cat. I just did a test, and one has to add & remove an item to the redirected cat and then perform a dummy edit (dummy edits are not realy necessary: the redirect bots seem to do that every night or so). In terms of unused cats, you'll have to look for a solution for unidentified objects that should remain, as empty as possible. --Foroa (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about that, but I removed the template while I did it the second time. What do you mean "for unidentified objects that should remain, as empty as possible"? Rocket000 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The standard naming of categories for unidentified people, plants, ... is "unidentified ..." Category:Unidentified subjects. Those hundreds of categories should be remain as empty as possible, so please no deletion because it is empty.

This User:RussBot/category_redirect_log will not like the newer version and needs two hours more time to do its daily job. (and the recursive cat is quite confusing) --Foroa (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know about the naming convention but I still don't see why that has anything to do with what I did. They "should remain, as empty as possible". So should any other category redirect. What makes those special? Anyway, I changed the template from checking {{PAGESINCAT}}≠0 to {{PAGESINCAT}}>1 to determine if it's empty. If templates can do it, bots can certainly be programed to do it. It may be confusing at first, but these are redirects, the normal user shouldn't see them that much. Rocket000 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm planning on undoing it as soon as we get the next update to Special:UnusedCategories because it is a ugly hack. Rocket000 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And that didn't even give us a full list. Why do we have so many empty categories? Rocket000 (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problems with empty categories anymore because people see now when they are empty and tend to speedy them if they are really useless. I prefer to have "professionally" made empty categories than categories that are created on a as needed base but without all the right links to other categories. Further tests with glaciers show that if the counts shows 1F, you have to add and remove an image before the problem go away: adding and removing something else don't seem to reset the counter. --Foroa (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That is weird. I wonder why it only work for images? I agree not all (or most) empty categories should be deleted, but there are tons that should be (the non-professionally made ones, ones unlikely to ever be used). I tend to keep any that are part of a larger category system such as species or places (especially if they have some template like on Category:History of Saint Martin (France)). These are likely to eventually be used; they are just waiting for images. Rocket000 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Further tests show that a corrupted category counter (in my test cases the image counter) is only corrected when the category is displayed AND the display contains one or more images (I guess the same would be true for galleries and categories but I have no test case). When no display is activated when images (or other stuff) are getting in and out the category, the counter is not corrected. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] __NOINDEX__

I would like to discuss the addition of __NOINDEX__ to this template. I believe that this should help our own search engines to not show the categories as a prime search result. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? That's one of the main reasons we have these redirects—so people can find the right category when they search for an alternate term. Unlike Wikipedia, our categories are sometimes just as important or even more important than our so-called mainspace. Rocket000 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, though some should not be seen by a search engine, especially some of the plurals, eg. Maltese Cross search. Maybe there can be an extra piped option to NOINDEX specific cases. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Anything the search engine can account for (such as singular vs. plural) shouldn't show up. I was thinking more of things like this. NOINDEX only affects external searches like Google. MediaWiki's will always work the same (which is a good thing if you think about it, something needs to search everything). Rocket000 (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So it would be possible to have an additional piped option |noindex  ? -- billinghurst (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm of the opinion that Google was meant to search the whole Internet, so let it. I just don't see the benefit. More information can't hurt, but less can. Besides, that a lot of work anyway. Why not manually add __NOINDEX__ to the pages? Rocket000 (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Useless category redirects should be deleted. All others should be indexed. -- User:Docu at 10:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with apostrophe ?

Category:L'Art de Vivre and Category:L'Impressionniste show always empty. --Foroa (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Temporary glitch? Seems to be working fine. Rocket000 (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've put back an image in Category:L'Impressionniste. There must be something wrong with the aphostrophe but I think that Russbott will detect it. --Foroa (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll investigate. Rocket000 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because the page name is appearing as L'Impressionniste to the {{PAGESINCAT:}}. I have no idea why. Rocket000 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)