Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Overcategorization page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 14 days

Nationality and residence

@Jc37 : Please explain your reverts. Frenchl (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please explain why you think your addition to this guideline was appropriate. There are many editors who watch this page, so please don't think you need to tailor your response only to me when responding. I look forward to reading your thoughts. - jc37 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is nationality an occupation? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When merging the page "Categorization of people", you ~~forgot~~ voluntary omitted this section :

"People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence."

You can find this section here at WP:COPPLACE : https://web.archive.org/web/20230325051002/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place

What you have done is against the rules of Wikipedia and I might raise your case to ANI. Frenchl (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations and threats are probably not the way to move towards a consensus. That aside, you are welcome to go to AN/I, but I would politely suggest that you may wish to read WP:BOOMERANG first.

In the meantime, the section you mention was merged to this page, as can be seen in this edit here: [1].

My guess is that it was subsequently edited. What is your specific concern? - jc37 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was subsequently edited, you have to re-add it.

My speficic concern is that the sentence "Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence." has been added/transferred nowhere. This is your choice and this is a voluntary omission. Frenchl (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what do you think I did (share diff)? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not much, it's jc37's edits that are problematic Frenchl (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let us know what date is the version of that web archive instance of Categorization of people? I have been digging for a while in the page history and cannot find it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date is 25 March 2023. The page has been merged, so the history is not available on Wikipedia. Fortunately, archive.org exists. Frenchl (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page where categorization of people used to be if Im not mistaken. I think it was moved, not merged. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not against the rules to boldly edit guidelines. Per WP:PGCHANGE,

Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance.

Although per WP:TALKFIRST,

Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change.

A note to @Jc37, per WP:TALKFIRST,

Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section actually says "substantive" major changes. The vast majority of what I did was merely presentational. In particular, unifying guidelines which were split across many pages. (Though there were some talk page posts along the way.)

And you are correct. After the various merges to unify, what was left on that page was about name sorting, so it was renamed to reflect the page's current contents.

User:Frenchl seems to be having several arguments across many pages in regards to nationality. I think we should wait to see what sort of consensus forms concerning those discussions before diving into another one here.

Guidelines should reflect common usage and practice. They should be descriptive, not proscriptive.

So if they are looking for some text to exist here in order to try to "win" some argument elsewhere, then I think they may misunderstand the point of guidelines. - jc37 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation dispute at Max Mallowan (and other biographical articles added at Category:Agatha Christie)

Please see the RFC at Talk:Max Mallowan#RFC about categorisation --wooden superman 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCVENUE

We should clarify WP:OCVENUE. The final sentence in paragraph #2 "Many notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted so many sports events and conventions over time that categories listing all such events would not be readable." seems to indicate that size is the only reason not to categorize events by their hosting locations while I think it has more to do with that not being a defining feature. Could we add another sentence stating "The venue of a specific event is rarely a defining feature and categories for venues should not include specific events."?--User:Namiba 17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was just to delete the 2nd paragraph. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: I was about to draft on RFC on the 2nd paragraph of WP:OCVENUE to get clarity about community consenus around categorizing one-time events by venue. But then I remembered we just had one last year right here and, while it was not formally closed, there clearly was no consensus one way or the other. But there also doesn't seem to be disagreement about what to enforce (1 and 2).

Do you think a fresh RFC would gain a firmer consensus, one way or the other? - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent results of CFDs which produced different results and the recent discussion about which I'd forgotten, I'm not sure a fresh RFC would gain a firmer consensus. What do you think?--User:Namiba 14:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion involving a part of this page, if anyone is interested

It's here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Tension between I WP:NONDEFINING vs. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:CATDEF Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]