This category is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
(3) Explains the types of articles that are to be placed into the list (this was a copy of the instructions that were already there).Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Further explains the types of articles to place into it by giving information or examples of what not to include within the list. Pknkly (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how your experience and knowledge would recognize it as a "default". But, perhaps if you looked at it from a beginner Wikipedian's perspective the "default" may not be so clear. I don't believe there is such a thing as a default category type. It is made either a project or a content category by the types of subcategories and articles that is placed within them and how the category is to be used. That is the reason for the emphasis on declaring it one or the other. Thanks for the discussion. If you would like to continue it, perhaps the best place would be at User talk:Pknkly/TempWork03 where I'm proposing the development of a content category template modeled after the tracking category template. Pknkly (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to not waste your time. If there is a need for something like this, it should be added by the software to all categories that are not marked as project categories. Making a special template and then adding it to all content categories (!) is the wrong way to go about it. --NE200:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]