Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

I noticed a lot of the categories contain surnames in the category and not just specific families which I think makes the category less useful. Category:Irish families is a particular outlier with 245 pages contained within, mostly surnames. Surname categorization by location is already covered by Category:Surnames_by_continent and its descendants.

Should surname pages be moved out of the families category? D1551D3N7 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• @D1551D3N7: yes, they should be moved out. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see the question in Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Redundant categories?. --Altenmann >talk 16:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Would any members of this project like to comment on suitable subcategories for diffusion at Category talk:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan now it has been converted to a container category? --woodensuperman 18:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Bumping this. It really could use more eyes... --woodensuperman 12:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Hidden category § Moving (Appearance → Show hidden categories). —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Are there any tools/gadgets/userscripts that make it easier to categorize templates, the way HotCat does for articles? I ran into some problems when I tried to do it manually, so I stopped. But there are a fair amount of templates in the backlog. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Some food for thought. Our categorization system shares more elements in common with a folder-based system than a tag-based system (which would be more like structured data). Sdkb ^talk 18:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Our categorization system allows articles to inhabit several categories, so it's more related to tags than folders. "Structured data" covers both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as an old-time cat wrangler, especially in Commons, I have seen weaknesses with MediaWiki's folder-style category trees. Yes, any article that has only one or two cats is probably undercategorized which is a matter of either misunderstanding or laziness. However, good categorization really is rather demanding. I can categorize pretty quickly when working topics within my own comfort zones where I am familiar with the existing tree structures. For others, I must first explore the category networks, which sometimes takes considerable time especially in Wikimedia Commons. Category loops are not rare, and must be resolved carefully. So, I also wonder whether #HashTags would help, since the tagger needn't study the existing organizing tags so carefully. Many social media sites use them, so their users would learn them especially easily. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thousands of people from France, Belgium, and the Netherlands were involved in escape and evasion lines during World War II. The escape lines were devoted to helping downed allied airmen and others evade capture by the Germans and return to England, most commonly via neutral Spain. Wikpedia has nearly one hundred articles about the escape lines and prominent escape line leaders -- and more are being created. At present, articles about escape lines and escape line leaders are categorized as Category:French Resistance, Category:Belgian Resistance, etc. A category titled "Escapes and rescues during World War II" exists but it is little used and refers to the escapees not those people who helped them.

I believe the escape lines and personnel merit their own category (or categories) -- as some escape lines already are in the French-language Wikipedia. The escape lines were distinct in their function and they avoided contact with armed and violent resistance groups. Thus, I propose that categories be created with titles such as: "Category:Escape and evasion lines (World War II)" and "Category:Members of escape and evasion lines".

I have no idea how to create a category -- and probably lack the technical ability to do so. So, if someone agrees with the foregoing, please create one or more categories. I promise to populate it with dozens of wikipedia articles. Smallchief (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Will categories such as Category:Organizations with Jewish founders and Category:Organizations with Jewish owners be good categories? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. Read WP:EGRS.--User:Namiba 17:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

But this guideline says it's permitted; what part of it specifically are you referring to? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This has probably already been discussed somewhere before, so I would appreciate it if someone could point me towards that guidance.

Benjamin H. Bailey was included in Category:National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry. Namiba removed it in a good faith edit, saying "his membership in the Grange is non-defining." However, when I look at the category, I see 25 other individuals in that category and it does not seem to be a particularly defining aspect of many of their lives (insomuch as I can tell from their articles).

I don't spend much time worrying about categories. Do we have a policy on this? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF is the policy, which states "Articles should normally be included in the categories that are most closely related to the subject's defining characteristics. Categories should not group subjects by trivial characteristics that have little relevance to the topics, unless it can be shown that such a characteristic or grouping is notable." My reading of the article is that his membership in the Grange is tangential to his notability, which is why I removed it. I've also removed this category from a number of other articles. If someone held a leadership position in the group or is otherwise strongly associated, I did not remove the category.--User:Namiba 17:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)