Template talk:Uncategorized

Question

 * Is this template needed? If it is to have a category listing uncategorized articles, there already is Special:Uncategorizedpages. If it is hoping that the next random reader will do the categorization, that just seems kind of lazy. older &ne; wiser 04:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've found it useful, although I've also found the wording misleading. There are other similar article improvement templates, such as  and  .  And, like those, this template appears to be aimed just as much at the original author as they are at the next editor to happen along.  I don't think that that is a reason to not have this template.  Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * I also find it useful, especially when I do not have the time to search for the right category to put the article in myself. However, I do think that it needs to be copyedited a bit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems kind of disingenuous to suggest that people won't be able to find an article if it's not categorized. I thought the way most people found pages on a Wiki was via either title search, or wikilinks. Certainly they can find it; that's not an argument for categorization. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  19:51, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had some trouble with the wording as well. I've added this tag to articles which were patently not of good quality.  I've also discovered that, unlike (say) , the template gives no clear indication to the novice editor of how to perform categorization.  The result is that novice editors add markup that isn't categorization, but that simply looks like it.  (See the history of Port Admiral for example.)  I've modified the template to address both your concerns and mine. Uncle G 15:37, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

template format
It looks odd to have this template "sticking out" to the side under some of the others (like wikify, cleanup, gcheck, etc.) so I've changed the format to use &lt;div&gt; similarly. --Darkwind 20:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a debate at TfD. See here for the discussion. -Splash 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please add category sort key
This template is protected. It needs a sort key added to the category link, so
 *  

needs to change to
 *  

– Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't put this tag on sorted stubs!
Could an admin please insert some language into the template description to the effect that this template should not be used on stub articles that already have a specialized stub template? Melchoir 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Grouse 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed. Lenoxus 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC) I am now neutral on the question and have used it to form this proposal. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Place on the talk page
This template is only useful to editors (and then only to editors who care about categories). If it is to appear I think, it is far better that it appears on the talk page, as unlike template:unreferenced and template:NPOV etc, it does not inform the reader of anything they need to know.

What I mean by this is if a new reader of Wikipedia arrives at the page after doing an internet search, then to have pointed out to that reader that the page does not cite references, or that it may have a bias, helps them realise that the page might not be as accurate as it could be. But the information in this template does not inform that reader of any information which that reader will want to know, and not knowing what a category is, will possibly be confused by it. For such a person it must be like reading a Microsoft error message, I think Wikipedia should be more friendly than that, and by placing the template on the talk page any editor who intends to edit the page should see it, so it will still inform the target audience that who ever put it there would like the page placed into a category.

I used to make the same mistake by placing footnote in the Note section, until someone pointed out that although of interest to editors it was not pertinent information for people who read a page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. Copied from my talk page:  Of course, if you were going to categorise it anyway, for which thanks, moving the template was somewhat moot... I think I'd have to join the dissenters on this in general, and certainly in the particular case of this template. But I'll be sure to mention it to the "consumers" of this cleanup resource, and poll what they think. Alai 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the last 6 months, I've been one of the most active "categorizers" and I strongly object to the idea of moving this template to the talk page. It's important for this tag to be as visible as possible. I am convinced that the backlog would not be kept under control (as it currently is) where it not for the participation of casual readers who bump into pages with the tag and categorize articles. If we start putting uncat tags on talk pages, I guarantee you'll get tons of articles that are categorized yet still have a tag because nobody notices it. Sure, we could have bots remove these but why waste resources on trivial tasks? And in any case, this makes the categorization task more tedious since one has to edit both the article and the talk page. I know it may sound like a negligible disadvantage but I've gotten pretty efficient at this and I tell you, this would slow me down by a factor of two. Also, the discussion you point to is hardly conclusive. Before overhauling the practices of tag placement, it's really important to consult people who use them most. As someone who does a lot of maintenance work, I'd be pretty unhappy about the change. Pascal.Tesson 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a member of the Uncategorized Task Force (just like Alai and Pascal), I agree with the above. Keep the tags on the article page. It makes perfect sense; for one thing, it is easier to categorize an article and remove the tag all in one edit. There are more reason's that I won't go into, but hopefully you get the point that consensus is against you here. Sorry. → Ed Gl  18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S., Care to join the task force? =) Help is appreciated.)

Please read Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article. I think that maintainance templates like this should go on the talk pages, because that is what talk pages are designed for. As is mentioned in several places on Wikipedia guidlines: "Wikipedia optimized for readers over editors" (see List guideline and Naming conventions for examples ) --Philip Baird Shearer 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before: I've read that discussion and what I read there is that someone got an idea that was received rather coolly. It certainly does not represent any sort of consensus that we should do things any differently than we've been used to. I think it's particularly important that as a project we be as transparent as we can with respect to the quality of articles available to our readers. If an article sucks, needs cleanup, lacks a category is unverified and is an orphan, we should say "here's an article but be aware that it sucks, needs cleanup, lacks a category is unverified and is an orphan so its quality is pretty damn low. But please do participate if you can". Pascal.Tesson 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SIMPLE version created
Becuase regular users cannot edit this page, this link will come in handy on the next edit:

simple:Template:Uncat --Slgrandson 14:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit needed
As discussed on Template messages/Cleanup, the code

should be changed to

so that the template can be used on example pages without putting the example page itself into Category:Category needed. Kickaha Ota 15:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done--Commander Keane 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentation tweak
I recommend modifying the usage on the template page, to indicate that this template can be used both standalone  and with the full   format, though the latter is preferred. --Elonka 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis
Hi,

Are we supposed to add interlanguage wikis to template pages, I'd like to add one but this page is protected. Thanks. --Vanka5 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar templates
How is this different to and  ? Wouldn't all these templates be better replaced by an automatic feature in the category software that lists all uncategorised pages? Or does this exist already, in which case how do these templates differ? Sorry, if these questions are stupid, it is not obvious to me! Nossac 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, we actually like questions around here! Actually there's no duplication -- the nocat and nocats templates are just redirects to the main template here Uncategorized.  Personally, I use the redirect of uncat, simply because that's easiest for me to type. And yes, an automatic feature would be a good idea, which we've been discussing.  Feel free to weigh in! --Elonka 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wording
The wording is kind of confusing. Shouldn't it say "this xxx should belong in one or more categories" because the way it is now it sounds as if it already does belong in a category. T REX speak 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood; have now amended it. Hope the result is an improvement! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Slight niggle
Part of the template is " should belong in one or more categories. Please categorize it ", but since Category is just a redirect to Categorization anyway, you just get two differant links to the same article (not to mention that if this template is used on a redirect page, it gets listed on Special:DoubleRedirects). Could someone take a look at this? ShakingSpirit talk 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit
This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:All uncategorised pages and either Category:Category needed or a monthly category like Category:Uncategorized from August 2024, if a date is supplied.

The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste at the bottom of the article.


 * This template is a self-reference.
 * Please do not subst: this template.

Proposing alternate version for Proded and Afded articles
Hi. People involved in the cleanup of uncategorized articles are always faced with the problem of articles which are currently under AfD or under Prod. It seems a waste of time to categorize them but then other editors doing cleanup will keep viewing these pages. Is there an elegant solution by which we could automatically have the template categorize differently that are in the deletion categories? Pascal.Tesson 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories linked to this template
Is it really necessary fdor this template to put things into both and  (or both Uncategorized and Uncategorised since month), since one is a subcat of the other? it seems like a doubling up of categories somewhere along the track. Grutness... wha?  22:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with this complaint. It is stupid to have two redundant categories, and it clutters up the bottom of articles. I request that one or the other category be removed from the template.--Srleffler 03:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't say which category to remove. That issue needs to be resolved before any change is made... and thus you might want to take this up on WP:CFD instead. --CBD 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Uncategorized exists primarily for bot-related purposes. Many articles are listed in numerous categories, so the claim that the presence of two category names "clutters up the bottom of articles" doesn't make much sense to me.  &mdash;David Levy 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should go through CfD, first, if anything. I can make a nomination for you, if you like, though I do get the impression you know what you want better than I do. Removing for the time being, until consensus is achieved. If you need any help with that nomination, just let me know, and I can have that done ASAP. Luna Santin 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A small change to prevent mis-understanding
The template currently says:
 * Please remove this tag after categorizing.

I think it should be changed to:
 * Please remove this tag after categorizing, but not before.

Eli Falk 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Luna Santin 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Eli Falk 12:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help in dispute about tag
An article Hizb_ut-Tahrir is already listed under multiple categories. However, an editor insists to have uncategorized tag because the category he wanted to have is not there. I think that it might makes the article disputed however does not justify having Uncategorized tag because article is under multiple categories already. There is some edit war going on this issue. Hence I thought we take some outside views. Please tell what is your take on it? --- ALM 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the matter is between you and that other editor, try Third opinion. This template is used when the article is not categorized, it should not be used for content dispute. -- ReyBrujo 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is number of editors involved. I am just trying to make things work there. Thanks for your answer. It will help if few more reply regarding this. Thanks for giving me link to Third opinion, I have never seen it before. --- ALM 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The category he wants to add is in harmony with his agenda to categorise this radical organisation as a terrorist organisation. I'm sure you will understand the difference between being radical or extreme (which in itself is a POV) from being a terrorist. He has attempted many times to insert this accusation without proper reference, and now he is trying to do so by adding a category related to terrorism. Aaliyah Stevens 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

interwiki link
Please add th:แม่แบบ:ต้องการหมวดหมู่ for interwiki link. Thanks Jutiphan | Talk  - 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash;David Levy 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request sub-category change
Could someone please change the category on this template from Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates to the subcategory Category:Category maintenance templates where other category-related templates are grouped? e.g. Popcat, Uncategorizedcat. Thx. Dl2000 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems logical enough, done. Alai 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dl2000 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples needed
So you'll have to excuse me for writing in a less professional tone of voice than usual, but I've just been thrown through the loop for the last several minutes because I had no idea the template is so smart, it knows it's a template. I kept thinking, "but where's the one for articles?" Please, please, please, please, please, modify the page to show us some examples ("on an article/category/image, it looks like this.") I thank you for your attention to this matter, and warn you that I feel like hitting something because I'm such a wikigeek for caring about this. -- $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Green tick.svg|px]] I've put the note "It detects the namespace and adjusts the wording accordingly" -  Harryboyles  07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's a little better, but... why not show... examples...? We already see at least one no matter what, right? If it's just the work, I understand; that can wait. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23, please replace Category:Uncategorized by Category:Uncategorized pages in this template. should not be changed. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. —David Levy 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Editprotect Split off documentation (see WP:DOC) add link to Template:UncategorizedTemplate. —Dispenser 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. And please ask nicely. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Query
Might I ask what is the point of this? Aside from the fact that this template tends to appear on articles that are in fact categorized (or remain on articles after they become categorized), the absence of a category seems to hardly necessitate a big honkin' box at the top of the article. &gt;Radi a n t &lt;  15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The template used to be much smaller, and I agree that it's become rather bloated.
 * 2. As I recall, there was consensus that the tag should be placed at the bottom of an article (where the category list appears), not at the top. I just checked ten articles, and all of them were compliant.  —David Levy 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Shall we debloatify it, then? Also, doesn't Special:Uncategorizedpages serve the same purpose? &gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i a n t &lt;  16:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's return to a smaller format.
 * This template categorizes the pages by month, and it also draws readers' attention to a problem that they might be able to fix (though it needn't be so large to accomplish this). —David Levy 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The special page isn't updated often enough to in the first place, be a "user friendly" cleanup resource, and crucially, it isn't long enough to get all of the uncategorised articles at any time. So typically, it'll contain articles that were categorised several days ago, and omits several thousand entirely uncatted articles.  Given the size of the backlog, and the rate of creation of new cat-free articles, the category is pretty essential as a holding pen.  The template's something of a nicety, but is consistent with the general practice of populating maintenance categories from a visible tag.  BTW, isn't the big honkin' box (now a dinky li'l one) generally at the bottom, rather than the top?  That's certainly what my 'bot is doing.  If the article gets categorised without the tag being removed, then in the worst case it'll get removed after a month or two when the relentless forces at WP:UNCAT sweep over it in a month or so (with the article very likely getting further categorised in the process).  Alai 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Template wording
Why does the template say "This article belongs in one or more categories."

Isn't this the template that is supposed to say that the article is uncategorized.

The current wording implies that the article is currently categorized. The wording should be fixed immediately. --Leon Sword 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Total agreement. It could still be as small but read "this article is uncategorized" rather than "belongs in one or more categories". - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info 07:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how the wording "This article belongs in one or more categories. Please categorize this article to list it with similar templates." implies that it already has been categorized (or why anyone would think that we'd have a template announcing this), but whatever...  —David Levy 07:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A change to the Usage section
editprotected

A new way to add this tremplate, properly dated, is:
 * uncategorized

Can someone please add this to the usage section? Od Mishehu 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --ais523 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a humorous side note
I was reading through some articles, and I noticed that adding the Uncategorized template actually categorizes it into the Uncategorized pages category, therefore it is categorized. So this is a bit of a paradox template. Matt - TheFearow 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's deliberate. :)  By putting an article into an "Uncategorized" category,  at least it gets it out of the Special:Uncategorizedpages list.  :) --Elonka 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a humorous paradox. Of course, we could move it to Not properly categorised. Jɪmp 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That might confuse some well meaning users who really want to add a page to Checkcategory. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to note that pages tagged with this template do not belong to any permanent categories since they may belong to stub or cleanup categories. Stardust8212 14:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... do not permanently belong to any categories ... but we know what you mean. I think you've got a good point. Jɪmp 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
editprotected Doubtless this template is likely to appear on pages which use -ise spelling. It would be nice is a parameter were added to allow the template to harmonise with this. Jɪmp 07:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for the template to change spelling dependent on what spellings of other words are used in the article? I don't believe that is possible. --After Midnight 0001 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm... huh?
editprotected Bullet point 4 in the documentation: Please do not subst: this template.

Bullet point 5 in the documentation: The simplest way to add this template to a page is to copy and paste uncategorized into the article.

Documentation probably shouldn't contradict itself, right? JPG-GR 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Twin response -- dated, substed, produces, which is useful for maintenance templates (the alternative is having all template dating done by a bot); also, Template:Uncategorized/doc does not appear to be protected at this time, and is free for editing. While the advice given in the documentation is good, I agree it sounds a bit confusing for someone who doesn't memorize templates for fun (I'm innocent!). Um... I'll see if there's something I can think of to have this make a bit more sense. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin  (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Uncategorized and Template:Uncategorizedstub should match
Please express your opinion about the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. Od Mishehu 09:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

General Clean up
please remove the Template:Not verified and Template:Unsourced from the see also section as they redirect to other listed templates. additionally please use Transclusion for the non-template content of this template. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made the link changes, and the doc page was created bay in May. → Template:Uncategorized/doc. mattbr 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed the note, thanks for making the change :) Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ambox update
editprotected

Could you please edit the template so that it uses the new ambox standardized style instead of the old style for consistancy's sake? ViperSnake151 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ with type=growth. <font face="Broadway"><font color="#056366">Mr. <font color="#056625">Z- <font color="#054F66">man  00:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't all the templates ment to be the same length/width, which it appears that this one isn't?. Peachey88 09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose for that is to make the templates stack well with one another. This particular tag is supposed to be inserted at the bottom of an article, so it makes more sense for it not to stack well with other templates (thereby discouraging incorrect placement).  —David Levy 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage on frontpage
editprotected uncategorized It says no to subst it then the next example shows it. Peachey88 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not subst: this template.
 * The following code is the recommended use; it will produce the uncategorized template with an appropriate date as its parameter:
 * It is correct although perhaps confusing. Do not use subst on the template uncategorized, but do use use subst on the template dated. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)