Category talk:Articles needing attention

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

I like this[edit]

I really like the way "Category" works with the {{style}} tag for this. Very good! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:35, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

By country/region[edit]

I like this article too, but can't it be sorted by continent and by country? Now when I want to improve some articles in a region I know about, it's almost impossible to find it. (WT-en) globe-trotter 13:57, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Subcategories[edit]

I made this so that everything falls under one of 6 sub-categories, because with the giant article list, some of the subcategories were pushed over on page 2 or 3 because of alphabetization. It should be more clear and easier to find certain types of articles now. (WT-en) texugo 01:40, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

I created a seventh category for inclusion here: Category:Articles needing districtification. In the template index list, Template:Districtify falls under the heading of "Articles needing attention", along with the other 6 categories already created. (WT-en) texugo 02:28, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Pages needing images[edit]

How about Wikivoyage:Pages needing images? How do I get that category onto this article? I really don't understand how to edit the article. —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talkcontribs)

That's a manually generated list, not a category, so there's no way to add it as a subcategory. A link could be manually linked in this category page's header text, that's about it. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I still really don't understand. How would it be added? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Change name of Category:Articles needing attention[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Does anyone object if I change the name of Category:Articles needing attention, to make it a more accurate description of what it contains? It contains categories regarding not only articles but also files, categories, and other non-article pages, and there are some types of maintenance categories which should not necessarily imply that their contents need direct or immediate attention. I think something simpler like Category:Maintenance would be better. (Note that this change wouldn't show up anywhere except on the maintenance category pages themselves.) Texugo (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to change this. We have a long history of not using categories at all, having adopted them on any real scale only in the last year or two and then only to facilitate carrying out specific maintenance tasks. The current naming reflects this. K7L (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This category has been around since 2006. Are you sure you aren't being a bit obstinate because of our other disagreement? The current name does not reflect inclusion of categories, files, etc., and there are a couple of other maintenance categories which are homeless simply because they do not technically fit with this name. What is the harm in making it accurate? Texugo (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with either name, and I find categories very useful. I believe that "we have a long history of" should never be an argument in any discussion here, btw. We should do what is the best and most logical, and continue to evolve to serve the travellers best. Articles and other pages and features do need attention and maintenance, an categories, even if hidden from the reader, can be very helpful with that. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The name "Articles needing attention" has a specific meaning. We don't create categories here for the sake of creating them; a category like "telephone numbers with missing country codes" is a request to the user to plunge forward and fix the problem. The same is true of other items in "articles needing attention"; the name and purpose is by design. K7L (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is creating categories for the sake of creating them. We include Category:Has default banner, but we have to exclude Category:Has custom banner and Category:Has standard banner because they don't require direct attention. And we've included files and categories here, but they are not articles needing attention. Why would you be so attached to such an inaccurate name which excludes similar maintenance categories the user might be interested in? Texugo (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The banner-related categories are requesting user attention, implicitly; they're asking users replace default banners with custom banners. Nothing neutral about that. K7L (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point, which is that only one out of the set of three categories appears there, excluding the other 2 since they two do not technically "need attention" despite their usefulness in maintenance. I still see zero advantage in keeping a limited, outdated moniker which does not group all the maintenance categories together. Texugo (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I really understand your concern, K7L. It seems to me that making the category-name more general (like Texugo is proposing) will rather make extra categories redundant and thus supports your overall goal of limiting the use of categories? I'm not particularly bothered by using this category also in cases where the name is not 100% accurate, but if Texugo wants to change it to better fit the content, that's fine with me. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
`Attention needed`, would maybe be a good name for it? (Ypsilon) 213.176.149.177 22:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be slightly better than the current title, but still wouldn't be appropriate for the maintenance categories which do not actually need direct attention. Texugo (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Maintenance categories. One advantage is that it makes it clearer that the category should not directly contain any pages. One disadvantage is that all of its subcategories will refer to Pages, which disrupts the usual category semantics. Powers (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't all of our hidden categories exist just for maintenance purposes, including the geographical hierarchy? K7L (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
In a sense, mostly, but there is of course a difference between the nested category tree which keeps the geographical hierarchy in order and the set of categories which directly group pages because they share a given property. If that distinction is actually important, I suppose we could call the latter Category:Tracking categories, in keeping with the already existing Special:TrackingCategories. I would be fine with Category:Maintenance categories as well, but now that it occured to me, I think Category:Tracking categories would be the best solution. Texugo (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)