This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Contents/Categories page. |
|
This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. |
I'd like to suggest adding publishing. Most other types of mass media are included. Maurreen 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the non-category-related links from the sidebar. -- Quiddity 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of every articles is the word Categories. This leads to a list of Categories. The top of the list should be the Contents, the general categories. This I have done. The Category called !!!Albums shouldn't be there-- Chuck Marean 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This is an even better idea for getting a Table of Contents of Wikipedia on the Special:Categories page.
[[:Category:! Art and culture]] with this: #REDIRECT[[Wikipedia:Browse#Art and culture|Art and culture]] |
does this:
-- Chuck Marean 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The top of the
Categories page should be high-level categories for sub-categories like the following.
Category:!Art and culture
Category:!Geography and places
Category:!History and events
Category:!Mathematics and abstractions
Category:!People and self
Category:!Philosophy
Category:!Physical sciences and nature
Category:!Religion and spirituality
Category:!Social sciences and society
Category:!Technology and invention
This would make it another directory as good as this one. --
Chuck Marean 15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I concurr; it shouldn't have been necessary, but I wanted to make evident that ZimZalaBim's is not idiosyncratic. DGG 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC) While here, I corrrected alphabetization in Math and PhysSci. I did not yet correct Philosophy, because it's so out of order thhat something special might have been intended. If no objections, I will.
This might be a good idea:
-- Chuck Marean 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The link just added (Section 1.2) goes to Library of Congress Classification, an article which now makes not the slightest reference to WP. It might be good, however, to have such an article, though it might duplicate the categories work. *Is the intent to reorganize the categories page according to LC? *Is the intent to provide a separate organization arranged by LC? *Is the intent to actually add the LC classification numbers to each WP article? Though the LC classification is traditionally regarded as best suited for whole books, not narrow articles, the articles in WP are broad enough (for the most part) so it might be good---especially since most college students are familiar with it. (For others, we might want to consider Dewey.) From (library) classification theory, the most suited would be the UDC, a special version of DDC intended to also work with narrower topics. Although few people (in the US) are familiar with it, it can be navigated with a rough knowledge of DDC, which almost everyone has. DGG 18:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Education is needed as a prominent category. It should go under social sciences, as the closesy top level category. But how does one go about doing this? DGG 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Apologies; it's there after all. DGG 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that architecture be listed under arts (and also remain under applied sciences). Modern architecture may not be artistic, but traditionally it seems that architecture has been considered part of the arts in general and might be sought there, too. -- Matthew K 14:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
There is currently no category (Arts & culture - Visual Arts) for the articles on prints & printmaking Johnbod 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Currently as a subject "Animation" is listed under Computer And Video Games. It should be listed under "visual arts" as im a bit confused (and scared) to edit the actual page i just thought i'd point it out.
Its clearly misplaced as all the other listings under video games are specific video games (Warcraft , Final Fantasy, etc)
Troy Spiral 06:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I would favour moving nursing and midwifery to the health sciences line as they are not branches of medicine and category:nursing is not a subcategory of category:medicine but of category:health sciences. -- Vince 15:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will leave this about a week and then move them. -- Vince 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there should possibly be a category for pregnant women. That is, women, with entries on wikipedia, who are currently pregnant. I don't know if there's one already, but I've never seen it. We have categories for loads of other things, so I think this one would be nice. I thought I'd suggest this first, before I actually went ahead and did it. Morhange 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the Terminology category list to the general philosophy category list. Philosophy has very specialized terminology which often share terms with other fields yet have very different meanings. Jonnylocks 08:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Business and Finance are vital parts of everyones life and these days there is the opportunity to invest as an individual. Wikipedia should be able to educate individual investors with the kind of plain spoken explanations it has for everything else. THere is tons of Jargon in business (go to Yahoo Finance) and this should be wiki-accessible. Mrdthree 11:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
por que no escriben en castellano teniendo en cuenta que estamos en peru
Is there already a category for this? If not, I believe there should be one (not sure if this is the right place to suggest such a thing, though it seems to be where many others are doing it). This category would include noteworthy persons such as George W. Bush and Bill Gates, both of whom have been portrayed in various works of fiction as having been assassinated. In addition to living persons (who have not [yet] been assassinated), the list would also include historical (that is, "deceased") persons who were not actually victims of assassination, but were portrayed as such in a fictional work (i.e. in an "alternate reality" historical fiction sort of work). Anyone else think this is a worthwhile category? And someone please let me know if this is not the appropriate page for this discussion. - Grammaticus Repairo 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this page still directs to an old, now defunct category just now moved to a new category, Computer & Video Gaming renamed as Video Gaming. And, frankly, I never liked links to a redirect from an article or category. Just a pet peeve of mine, don't know why. ;D Legion 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
For example, if I wanted all articles that included 1981 births and People from London, would there be a possible way of searching? I'm guessing not...-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for something and I noticed on the newer musicians that there is no category for the following:
Living Musician Dead Musician Current Band Disbanded Band
I tried looking and the closest thing I could find was "living people" and "dead people". Wanted a consensus before I created one and put them on randomly on the variety of artists...
-- Hourick 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Would that be possible? Yes i know we'd use it instead of doing our homework of navigating through the hierarchy, and that would put an additional burden on the servers; or would it? -- Jerome Potts 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Neuroscience should be listed on this page. It is an independent discipline that combines biology, psychology, chemistry, and physics to study the nervous system.-- Dentate 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
tried to read and see if this catagory is avalible but could not find it. Could we get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm using this page to test the process of transcluding contents page sections to multiple pages. You can see the related discussion at Portal talk:Contents#Topics-based contents pages project. You can see a working example of how a section here is transcluded to another page at Portal:Contents/Reference. RichardF 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF ( talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
'Philosophy and Thinking' should become 'Philosophy and Thought', and 'Natural Sciences and Nature' should be the reverse, 'Nature and Natural Sciences' The verb 'thinking' sounds awkward in a title, and in a Title the simplest form of a word always comes first if its used twice. -- PearlWhiteSerial 22:47, 7 December 2007
Why has the very helpful AZ index panel been removed, please? TerriersFan ( talk) 00:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
A new study of Wikipedia used 11 categories (not including Reference) to quantify growth What's in Wikipedia? -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest looking at an overall layout redesign of this page. Currently it's just a massive wall of links. There are technologies like JQuery that can make this page much more stream lined and interesting. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houw ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. Does anyone know of a useful tool to automatically cross-reference categories? Say if I wanted to cross-reference "2010 films" with "black comedy films" to get me something to go out and buy, or to cross-reference suicides by Chinese monarchs, or something like that. I know it would be crude and imperfect, but I could find such a thing useful if it existed (or enjoy making one, with some help). Cheers, ~ Zythe Talk to me! 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages
The Transhumanist 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
See A visualization of Wikipedia's category structure as noted in Signpost [1] from Monday -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents". See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment. The Transhumanist 10:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Include redirect WP:9 in a "Shortcuts" box. 71.146.20.62 ( talk) 03:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Some links point to categories that further redirect to some other category. Technically, such redirecting categories that have non-zero number of pages assigned to them will be collected under category:Wikipedia_non-empty_soft_redirected_categories, but seems like the bots ignore the Portal pages. So, such category links should instead point to the (softly-) redirected categories.
Seems like a foundation of our societies? Judge Brussels Court, SvenAERTS ( talk) 13:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that there exists cycles in the Wikipedia's category system. To give one example, Canaanite writing systems -> Writing systems derived from the Phoenician -> Abjad writing systems, is a cycle. Is that an expected feature of the system ? I have a few issues with that, first, it's semantically wrong : Abjad_writing_systems is a subcategory of Canaanite_writing_systems and Canaanite_writing_systems is a subcategory of Abjad_writing_systems, which is not possible. Secondly, I'm trying to build a complete hierarchy of Wikipedia's categories and cycles makes this effort pretty much pointless. I'm thinking that it would be really valuable to strive for cleaning the category graph, in order to obtain an acyclic oriented graph. It would solve the two problems I see with the current way of organizing it. Is there any current effort to solve this issue ? If yes, how can I join ? If no, where should I start to suggest my help with it ?
Stilgarnat ( talk) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Parnohlia caste is know as. :- Dalit (from Sanskrit: दलित, romanized: dalita meaning "broken/scattered", Hindi: दलित, romanized: dalit, same meaning) is a name for people belonging to the lowest stratum castes in India, previously characterised as "untouchable".[1] Dalits were excluded from the four-fold varna system of Hinduism and were seen as forming a fifth varna, also known by the name of Panchama. Dalits now profess various religious beliefs, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Christianity, Islam and various other belief systems. Scheduled Castes is the official term for Dalits as per the Constitution of India. Atul parnohlia ( talk) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Parnohlia caste Atul parnohlia ( talk) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Parnohlia Atul parnohlia ( talk) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Parnohlia surname Atul parnohlia ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:TI and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 3#Wikipedia:TI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q28 ( talk) 08:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)