Wikipedia talk:Featured categories

Um... what in the world can be featured about a category?

The category text is supposed to be really simplistic, with a more in-depth explanation in an article if it needs one, so the only measure by which to judge is completeness. But completeness can not be centralized for a category, because categories are based on whatever pages anyone decides to throw on. This takes my problems with Wikipedia:Featured topics and multiplies them by about a thousand. -Amark moo! 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no need in this (though I believe differently for featured topics). Hurricanehink (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see how someone could say that featured topics make sense, and my issue is more that it seems meaningless to me. But I don't even know what you could do to a category to make it more featured than any other. -Amark moo! 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I too don't see how a category could be "featured". What criteria do you have in mind? -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting

This has merit, but perhaps it should reflect categorization schemes instead of individual categories. For instance, WP:MILHIST has several complex classifications that are well thought-out. Some other projects do not, and some schemes are rather messy. Thus we do have certain schemas that are more desirable than others, and this may point that out. >Radiant< 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would compare making a featured category to electing a punter into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. But the latter idea has been considered (Ray Guy), and so should this. I think there need to be at least 3 criteria:

1. 1. It should be a fairly large category, with some subcategories.
   2. It should be well-organized.
   3. The articles in the category should be well-developed, and some should be GAs or FAs.

I think some of the mathematics subcategories are already in fine shape. YechielMan 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)