Template talk:Category tree

English Wikipedia version

See: w:Template:Categorytree --Timeshifter 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the USE?

Why this template? All it does is replicate a function that is (at least by now) available automatically RIGHT BELOW where this template shows up on the page.

Why have TWO sets category of category links (the built-in, also expandable one - and this one) duplicated on each page, and clutter up a clean category with this? Sorry if I am ranting a bit here, but I just don't get it. Ingolfson (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The built-in function is horrible when there are many images in the category; this hides the categories. This template compensates to some extent. Examples: Category:Deletion requests, Category:Incomplete deletion requests, Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot, Category:Location possible and many others. --Foroa (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is used in roughly 150 cats], most of the time for very good reasons (except for New zealand). The list is not complete as the HTML function categorytree is used as well. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Foroa, that makes a lot of sense. Ingolfson (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one to use?

We have and {{Categorytree}} and <categorytree>You name it</categorytree>

Category:Ogg sound files has both... Maybe we put a note how to handle the two "functions" in the noinclude sec. after discussion. I prefer using <categorytree>Foo</categorytree> because that saves time (touch the mouse, move the curser, click, wait). --Mattes (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Both have their purposes. I removed one of the category trees from Category:Ogg sound files, though. Only one is needed, <categorytree>Foo</categorytree>. In that situation where there are only a few subcategories, it makes more sense.

In other cases, the closed category tree makes more sense, since leaving it open means one may have to scroll down a ways before seeing any images. People may not be interested in subcategories, and so why make them keep clicking the right sidebar to scroll or page down.

I agree that a noinclude section would be helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing [+] signs

I posted the following at mw:Extension talk:CategoryTree#Missing_.5B.2B.5D_signs_again :

In the last few days the category extension has been missing [+] links in en.wikipedia.org and commons.wikimeda.org. The symptoms are as described in "Missing [+] signs" above. There are no recent bugs listed in bugzilla for this problem, does anyone know the status? -84user (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

False alarm, I had Javascript disabled. -84user 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disabled

Today the category tree extension was disabled. Don't know any details, just that it doesn't work anymore. Multichill (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Domas opened a bug for this, see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23682 . Multichill (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can live for a while without the category tree template. But what is worse is that all counters are gone in category displays (empty state is no longer displayed), which is a major nuisance, even more so in for example Category:Non-empty category redirects and Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tim Starling has announced the extension is re-enabled, so I re-enabled this template too. -84user (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Category pages finally working

As most category pages now display correctly, shall we stop displaying this when only the basic form is used ({{Category tree}} : i.e. no additional paramters)? --  Docu  at 17:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, at least I don't know any case where the template in its basic form is still needed --:bdk: 16:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be for a bot to remove the transclusions. Templates that aren't displayed only create clutter when editing. Also: yay! —LX (talk, contribs) 09:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

of course, that would be the ideal solution :-) --:bdk: 19:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a short question at the VP now … hoping that someone (with or without a bot account) notices it. --:bdk: 01:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How is {{Category tree}} now redundant? Has some new functionality been added to category pages so that a tree is now automatically displayed? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In the past, large categories which needed to be split over multiple pages would only show some of its subcategories on each page. The files in the category were sorted alphabetically, and the subcategories were cut off at the same point as the files on each page. {{Category tree}} was created to be able to see all the subcategories right away. Now, all subcategories are shown directly, each with its own expandable tree, which makes the template redundant. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great. I didn't realize that. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you the below before/after the current template, it should disappear when there is no parameter:

• {{#if:{{{1}}}|
• |}}

. --  Docu  at 10:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)