JarrahTree (talk | contribs) →Countries and sub-categories: comment |
|||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
:::::::No, when you are surfing through the categories, the most convenient and obvious way is the [[:Category:Countries in Africa]]. [[User:Wwikix|Wwikix]] ([[User talk:Wwikix|talk]]) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
:::::::No, when you are surfing through the categories, the most convenient and obvious way is the [[:Category:Countries in Africa]]. [[User:Wwikix|Wwikix]] ([[User talk:Wwikix|talk]]) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::''Category surfing'' ? once again a very personal view of how to approach subjects categorization, 'convenient' and 'obvious' - has nothing to do with how wikipedia works in its core category trees to maintain a universally accepted format that editors abide by to sustain a commonly agreed form - ''consensus'' built structure. [[User:JarrahTree|JarrahTree]] 12:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:37, 20 October 2016
![]() | Categories | |||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Meta proposal for merging of establishment categories
Copied from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_8#Roman_Empire_establishments_.281st_century_and_earlier.29:
- @Marcocapelle: I've nominated a few of these category trees within establishments over the past couple days, but this is getting to be too much to handle without clogging up CfD. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to post a single discussion that aims at establishing some criteria by which we could delete categories within the establishments tree. It seems like a waste to keep nominating these and discussing over and over again when there's obviously consensus to merge beyond these year articles. Do you think that type of discussion would be appropriate? I was thinking something to the effect of:
- "If there's no more than 5 pages in any one year of a decade, all years can be merged up to the century of establishments in the country (Category:Xth-century establishments in COUNTRY), the specific year of the country (Category:Y in COUNTRY), and the specific year of establishments in the continent (Category:Y establishments in CONTINENT). If the requested merge target is not exactly these three categories, a new CfD is required. All resulting empty categories can be deleted."
- @Marcocapelle: I've nominated a few of these category trees within establishments over the past couple days, but this is getting to be too much to handle without clogging up CfD. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to post a single discussion that aims at establishing some criteria by which we could delete categories within the establishments tree. It seems like a waste to keep nominating these and discussing over and over again when there's obviously consensus to merge beyond these year articles. Do you think that type of discussion would be appropriate? I was thinking something to the effect of:
Copied until here
- Undoubtedly a discussion like that would be appropriate but I'm not sure what the proper procedure would be (what is the right platform etc). @Fayenatic london, Good Olfactory, and Ricky81682: What's your thought about this? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean by appropriate. We could call it a CfD discussion that doesn't specifically enumerate all categories being discussed, but you could squint a bit and say that constitutes a criteria for speedy deletion, which would require a big community-wide hubbub that likely lasts over a month. ~ RobTalk 06:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note, if there's any editors who doubt the need to clean up this category tree, feast your eyes on this category tree. Stunning. ~ RobTalk 05:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean by appropriate. We could call it a CfD discussion that doesn't specifically enumerate all categories being discussed, but you could squint a bit and say that constitutes a criteria for speedy deletion, which would require a big community-wide hubbub that likely lasts over a month. ~ RobTalk 06:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Oy, this tree is a real mess. I've tried working in it before, but there are users who have chosen to develop it in ways that aren't always terribly helpful (like the Tuvan Republic ones, above). (Added to the small category problems are the ones with users resisting "anachronistic" naming, which seem to me to also not have been fully resolved.) I would like it if something could be done along these lines of having a general discussion about the tree. Probably a CfD could be used. Maybe if we did a good job with promoting it in various wikiprojects and notifying editors who have been involved in editing the tree, we could get away with it. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote an essay at User:BU Rob13/SMALLCAT is not a suicide pact a couple days back especially for those editors who develop these sorts of trees for the sake of uniformity. I figured I would eventually wind up using it at several discussions related to this tree. ~ RobTalk 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I like that, it's a good approach. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote an essay at User:BU Rob13/SMALLCAT is not a suicide pact a couple days back especially for those editors who develop these sorts of trees for the sake of uniformity. I figured I would eventually wind up using it at several discussions related to this tree. ~ RobTalk 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Related Discussion There has been a side-conversation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 30#Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards about placing eponymous categories in establishment by year categories. (This isn't really a problem with the award cats but I invited a broader discussion with that nomination.) The consensus has been that the United States article should be included in Category:1776 establishments but Category:United States should not. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- SMALLCAT I think the underlying problem here is that WP:SMALLCAT is a vague and contradictory and confuses well-meaning editors (including me). I'm not opposed to a more specific fix to the year categories but I'd rather also fix this mess. I proposed an across-the-board definition of small categories as less than 5 articles at this discussion. While most editors felt 5 was a good rule of thumb, some thought making that official would be too rigid.
- Maybe different changes based on @BU Rob13:'s essay would bring us to consensus on a change. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: I agree with the well-meaning editors that five pages as an absolute minimum is inflexible, actually. Imagine a categorization scheme where all subcategories have 6 pages but one has four pages. Do we delete the one? Obviously, no. Perhaps we could clarify the guideline by saying that 5 articles per sub-category is the guideline, but 3 articles per sub-category is required. A 1-2 article subcategory is useless, even within an existing categorization scheme. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not to get too far into the weeds, but that old proposal was that a majority of subcategories had to have 5 or more articles so Category:Science museums in the United States by state would be fine but Category:College softball coaches in the United States by university would not. I'm open to any change that makes small cat less subjective including the thresholds you laid out above. If you can only find a consensus with the date categories, I would support that as a partial fix too. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I like that suggestion too. The problem is that any guideline will be interpreted as a rule. For instance, I'm guessing that at least a majority (possibly a supermajority) of by year categories in the establishments tree have less than five articles in them. So do we delete all by year categories? No, since we need to look at the different countries and even centuries within a country at a more granular level. It's very tricky. ~ RobTalk 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not to get too far into the weeds, but that old proposal was that a majority of subcategories had to have 5 or more articles so Category:Science museums in the United States by state would be fine but Category:College softball coaches in the United States by university would not. I'm open to any change that makes small cat less subjective including the thresholds you laid out above. If you can only find a consensus with the date categories, I would support that as a partial fix too. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @RevelationDirect: I agree with the well-meaning editors that five pages as an absolute minimum is inflexible, actually. Imagine a categorization scheme where all subcategories have 6 pages but one has four pages. Do we delete the one? Obviously, no. Perhaps we could clarify the guideline by saying that 5 articles per sub-category is the guideline, but 3 articles per sub-category is required. A 1-2 article subcategory is useless, even within an existing categorization scheme. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have been trying to at least get every article in a category for establishment by year from 1500 on (I skipped a few years, and am now to 1622) into a category by either country or continent by year for establishment. I think we should apply the categories in a way that respects the political realities of the time. The one messy one I have not figured out is how to reflect the political reality that Wales was under the full control of England, but never viewed at all as a colony. After 1707 Great Britain and then the UK allows grouping, but I am not sure of before 1707. Especially since some years there are so few Wales articles, it almost seems that they could just be grouped under England. I am also trying to do a general search for say 1622, and find all articles on something established that year and categorize them. However such searches end up being 10% about things were 1622 shows up for reasons not related to the year at all, 20% for people who died or were born that year, 20% for events happening that year or artistic works created that year, 10% for articles that only show up because they have the year in an embeded related works listing, 25% for people who did something in 1622 or had their status change in 1622 so it gets mentioned in the article, 5% for articles on an office that has a list of holders where there was a change in 1622, and only about 10% for things that were actually established that year. The percentages may be a little off, but at times it feels like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment One help would be if there were easier way to create by year organization categories without creating all the possible parents as red links. On the other hand, some of the discussion of small cats in the case of establishments by year needs to bear in mind that the issue is not how many articles are currently in the category, but how many can reasonably thought to come to be in the category. The later tends to be a larger number.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Yes, but categories categorize articles that exist, not articles that don't exist. It's nice to say that we could eventually discover historical information that supports the existence of 20 articles about establishments in some tiny colony in 1852, but that doesn't really justify housing a single article on such an establishment under six layers to make it very difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. There exists already a way to create the categories without layers of sub-caetgorization; just create Category:Establishments in Foo and throw everything in there. Once there's enough articles to warrant centuries, make the century categories. And so on and so forth. It's the immediate categorization into years that poses an issue. We can probably always categorize by year in some way, but not always by year and country. ~ RobTalk 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is how we do it at WP:WPSS - let's consider a stub template for railway stations in New South Wales. There are almost a hundred articles suitable to carry this template, so we also create a matching category, Category:New South Wales railway station stubs, and make it a subcategory of Category:Australia railway station stubs and Category:New South Wales rail transport stubs. There can also be similar templates for the other Australian states, but the rail networks in those might not be as extensive as that in NSW - lets now say that we create a stub template for railway stations in Western Australia. This might get used on perhaps half-a-dozen articles; that's not enough to justify creation of Category:Western Australia railway station stubs so we upmerge its potential members to Category:Australia railway station stubs and Category:Western Australia rail transport stubs, the cats that would have been the parents of Category:Western Australia railway station stubs. If one day we find that there are 30+ articles bearing that template, we then create its dedicated category. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: Yes, but categories categorize articles that exist, not articles that don't exist. It's nice to say that we could eventually discover historical information that supports the existence of 20 articles about establishments in some tiny colony in 1852, but that doesn't really justify housing a single article on such an establishment under six layers to make it very difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. There exists already a way to create the categories without layers of sub-caetgorization; just create Category:Establishments in Foo and throw everything in there. Once there's enough articles to warrant centuries, make the century categories. And so on and so forth. It's the immediate categorization into years that poses an issue. We can probably always categorize by year in some way, but not always by year and country. ~ RobTalk 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge all the softball coach articles to their respective college or university coaches category and just directly in the college softball coach category. Assuming there is no one who is in more than one subcategory, which is probably a false assumption, there are about 110 articles, so this is a category with no good reason to split it, especially in a schema with humdreds of potential sub-categories. I know it has not been formally nominated and will need to be but I wanted to make it clear that there was support for this approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - i think that lately the WP:SMALLCAT argument has become an overkill to merge infant category trees, without much consideration whether those could or couldn't be developed into mature trees. One example is Abbasid Caliphate categorization, which obviously can be expanded into a full useful tree, but still nominated for deletion. Another is Tuvan People's Republic categorization, which indeed might not become a fully developed tree. WP:SMALLCAT should avoid overkill and thus i tend to agree that "under five" should be a rule of thumb for discussion, but not always resulting in deletion. The Abbasid categories can be expanded easily for instance into a dozen more.GreyShark (dibra) 05:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- If that is indeed the case, then maybe those who create categories should put more thought into properly populating them when they create them. A lot of users put one item in a new category and leave others to do the populating, but that hardly ever happens with many of these super-specific categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Meclee is against having Category:Philosophy of economics within the tree of Category:Economics. Per this discussion he suggests instead to have it as a parent of Category:Economics. Personally I think it is a weird way of categorizing, as Philosophy of Economics clearly is a sub-discipline of Economics. What do other editors think of this? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The category tree goes from the more general to the more specific. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Meclee is apparently convinced that Philosophy of Economics is the most general. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Terrorism committed by country what is this category?
The naming of this category is confusing. It should be renamed and its scope clarified.
I see five possibilities for its scope and name.
1: "State terrorism" (controversial for example the Iraq war could be label as State terrorism. As could the dropping of the atomic bomb, many events in WW2, the destruction of Carthage etc. By its nature a POV tag.)
2: It is the same as Category:State-sponsored terrorism and should be deleted.
3: It is the same as Category:Terrorism by country and should be deleted.
4: "Terrorism committed by a state" same as option 1 POV problems.
5: "State terrorism theory" A more limited category.Jonney2000 (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- I moved some stuff out of Category:Terrorism committed by country and into Category:State-sponsored terrorism.
- Category:State-sponsored terrorism should not be a sub cat of State terrorism.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Moderator proposal
A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Antisemitism, Racism and Discrimination
Editors interested in categorizing are invited to comment at Category talk:Antisemitism#Racism and Discrimination. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories are not articles
Editors interested in categories are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories are not articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories
Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Guideline for content on page supporting categories
I seem to remember someone citing this months ago but can't remember what it was called. It was a policy where if you included a category for the article, the subject of the category had to be mentioned on the page, ideally with a supporting reference.
The closest I could find was WP:CATDEF but I thought there was something more specific than that to do with sourcing. Ranze (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions listed at Requested moves
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions to be moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Closing instructions. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Category:Truck drivers
I glanced at Category:Truck drivers via the awfully blatant WP:NOTMEMORIAL/WP:NOTNEWS violation that is Darrell Ward in its present state. Anyway, in this category page, the W's are sorting in between R and S. I didn't dig any deeper to see if there was a reason for this or if it's some sort of software screwup, but I felt that it may warrant mention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- @RadioKAOS: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sorting in categories unreliable for a few days. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Showing_related_articles.2C_especially_on_Mobile Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
A category that may need some cleanup
Category:Animal rights advocates properly specifies that it should be applied only to persons for whom it is a defining characteristic, and not to celebrities who just happen to be supporters. However, I've been noticing that editors have been adding the category rather indiscriminately to celebrity pages. It might be a good idea to go through the category and do some cleanup. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Template adding supercats to cats question
There is a discussion involving sports categories, their parent groups, and templates to populate both sets at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Continents_from_countries. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
New tracking categories created
I have created, and requested template changes to populate, two new tracking categories. Like Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, these categories combine all the entries from corresponding month-by-month tracking categories in one category. One use for this is to allow the use of Special:RandomInCategory across all tracked months at once, though there are certainly other uses. The new categories are:
- All articles sourced by IMDb (to be populated by {{BLP IMDb refimprove}}) – will include all (currently ~2100) articles in month subcategories of Articles sourced by IMDb
- All BLP articles lacking sources (to be populated by {{BLP sources}} and {{BLP unsourced}}) – will include all (currently ~99,000) pages in month subcategories of BLP articles lacking sources (unlike All unreferenced BLPs, which only lists the (~3000) BLPs with no references)
—swpbT 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please weigh in at Template_talk:BLP_sources#New_comments—this uncontroversial change is being scuttled by lack of attention. —swpbT
Please create. Pe-ga-sos (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't there any? I find it hard to believe. Pe-ga-sos (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, there are articles about people with multiple disabilities. But why do they need to be categorised separately from Category:People with disabilities? See WP:CAT/GRS. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't there any? I find it hard to believe. Pe-ga-sos (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Tracking tracking categories?
While finishing up a few TFD mergers I came across some tracking categories used by the templates I was working on. I noticed that while both categories are tracking categories, they are neither named similarly nor listed under a "unknown parameter" supercat. The cats in question are Category:Articles with unknown parameter in Infobox rail line and Category:Pages using infobox tennis tournament with unsupported parameters. I created the IB tennis cat, modeling it after the {{infobox company}} tracking cat, but I have two questions.
- Is there a way to find all of these "unknown/unsupported params" categories and place them all into a category of their own?
- Is it reasonable to create some sort of standardized name for these templates?
If #1 isn't possible/feasible, then I guess I won't worry about it, but the thought of getting #2 going is rather tempting. Primefac (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Countries and sub-categories
Hello, folks. I'm interested in learning to what extent, if any, the general rules on parent/child categorization are applied to articles on countries. For example, is the article on Mongolia really supposed to be categorized as a country in Northeast Asia AND as a country in East Asia AND as a country in Asia?
I will greatly appreciate any guidance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- See guideline on non-diffusing subcategories. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Postdlf: Thank you for the prompt response. I was aware of the notion of non-diffusing categories, but perhaps my question wasn't as clear as it could have been. It seems to me that virtually any sub-category can be viewed as consisting of those members of the parent that possess a certain characteristic. In turn then, it would be possible to justify placing any article in both the parent and child categories, simply by declaring "non-diffusion". But this way of looking at the question renders the general rule moot (i.e., why bother having a general rule if it can be disregarded at will?).
- My understanding was that the general rule (no articles in both a parent and a child, other than for eponymous categories) should be followed unless the community has decided that an exception applies. And that the existence of a community-decided exception would be evidenced by a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} or an {{All included}} template. Am I misunderstanding this? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wwikix and Largoplazo: Are you aware of this discussion? It seems to be closely related to that at User talk:Wwikix#Categorization of countries in Polynesia. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NewYorkActuary, from the perspective of someone who's just stalking this project for the moment (I have sections above), I see absolutely no reason why Mongolia should be put anything other than Category:Northeast Asian countries. There is nothing "special" about a NE Asian country that would not-diffuse upward. It's in the East (Northeastern) and it's in Asia, so putting it in both of those parent categories seems redundant. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I gather that "non-diffusing category" refers, for example, to the category of Actors who have won Academy Awards. It isn't that there is a breakdown of all Actors into Awards They Have Won, with some of them being Academy Award winners, some of them being BAFTA winners, etc., with most or all of them being in one of the subcategories. It's that having won an academy award is a characteristic shared by some actors, so it's a subcategory, but it isn't part of a scheme of subcategorization of the category of Actors. Whereas, if we're breaking the world down into Polynesia and Eastern Europe and so forth, then that is a further breakdown that goes beyond Oceania and Europe, also yielding Melanesia, Australia, and New Zealand in one case, and Western Europe, Central Europe, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe in the other case. So these are diffusing subcategories of Oceania and Europe, respectively. If my understanding is correct. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wwikix and Largoplazo: Are you aware of this discussion? It seems to be closely related to that at User talk:Wwikix#Categorization of countries in Polynesia. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's better to maintain a categorization of the countries in both the parent category and the sub category for reasons of an overall view. For example, the Category:East African countries shows the countries belonging to this region, the Category:Countries in Africa shows the countries of entire Africa. I guess this will be very convenient to the users. Wwikix (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have seen nothing from this editor as to any clear understanding of what categorization is about, the guidelines or policies - and simply the mantra of overall view and convenient to the users - which raises concerns as to whether there is a clear understanding of how wikipedia works... JarrahTree 10:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know how the English Wikipedia works but there is also something like common sense. A rigid application of the guidelines can be counterproductive. Wwikix (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let that stand as it is, and for others to consider the issues, as your personal common sense is noted in your edits JarrahTree 10:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is a vast difference between having the flexibility to accommodate special circumstances and completely ignoring the rules and doing what you want instead when there are no special circumstances to accommodate. Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a special circumstance worth while accommodating. Wwikix (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- You have yet to explain, despite having been asked, what you think is special about this circumstance, that distinguishes it from multi-level categorization in general. You just keep telling us what you think. Meanwhile, we have you on one side, and everyone else disagreeing with you. So why do you think that you prevail in this situation? Largoplazo (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a special circumstance worth while accommodating. Wwikix (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- An example, when the countries are removed from the Category:Countries in Africa, you can only find these countries by clicking on the Category:Countries in Africa by region and succeedingly you have to search in one of the sub categories concerning the various regions of Africa. That isn't a very convenient way of looking for African countries. Wwikix (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The most convenient, and the most obvious, way of looking for a list of African countries is by going to the article on Africa. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- An example, when the countries are removed from the Category:Countries in Africa, you can only find these countries by clicking on the Category:Countries in Africa by region and succeedingly you have to search in one of the sub categories concerning the various regions of Africa. That isn't a very convenient way of looking for African countries. Wwikix (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, when you are surfing through the categories, the most convenient and obvious way is the Category:Countries in Africa. Wwikix (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Category surfing ? once again a very personal view of how to approach subjects categorization, 'convenient' and 'obvious' - has nothing to do with how wikipedia works in its core category trees to maintain a universally accepted format that editors abide by to sustain a commonly agreed form - consensus built structure. JarrahTree 12:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)