Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

OCAWARD

Currently the OCAWARD guideline focuses on the existence of award categories. I would suggest we extend the guideline to the categorizing process, to add in the guideline that biographies can only be categorized in an award category if the person did something exceptional (as described in the article) to deserve the award. Take for example Miklós Horthy, there is an enormous category clutter because of the awards, I would rather remove these reward categories all at once from the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That kind of subjectivity has no place in categorization, nor in Wikipedia generally. It's not up to us to decide who really deserves an award, or who the most "exceptional" award recipients are. If an award category exists, then everyone who verifiably received it should go in that category. Anything else would be unworkable and render our categories incomplete. You should instead be asking whether particular award categories (specifically, with your example article, military decorations and honors) should exist at all, and I see your example article even has some redlinked (i.e., nonexistent) categories that could be simply removed. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather see this as an extra clarification of the WP:NONDEF guideline which is also related to the categorizing process. If a characteristic is not defining, the article shouldn't be in the category, even if the characteristic is applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
As with all of OC, that's an inclusion standard for deciding whether categories should exist. There is no consensus to apply it to inclusion in an already existing category, and such an approach would not be workable. Categories get their value from being comprehensive indexes or groupings, not greatest hits assortments cherry-picked by editors. We'd lose predictability and completeness where a group is finite, and also a lot of wasted time arguing over subjective notions of importance for every article rather than simply verifying a fact. Some articles are going to have a lot of categories. That's unavoidable particularly with people who had long, prominent careers andor accomplishments in diverse fields. So ironicially your approach would likely just exclude from certain categories their most well-known members. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I broadly agree with postdlf. A category tag should only be removed from an article if either the article doesn't meet the category's inclusion criteria or the category doesn't exist (or is being deleted). Unless stated otherwise the inclusion criteria for a "Recipients of <medal>" category is simply that the person received that medal. For categorization by occupation we (try to) categorize only by notable occupation(s) (e.g. so Category:Golfers doesn't contain thousands of people who just list golf as one of their hobbies) - that's stated in the people-by-occupation category (and hence applies to all its subcats) and in the guidelines (WP:COP), but (IMO) that way of doing things wouldn't be workable/appropriate for Category:Award winners. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the golf categories have a necessary threshold to exclude hobbyists or dabblers, as would painters, writers, etc. But that's a matter for each category to sort out criteria (how much do you have to FOO to be called a FOOer) and then apply the same way to all articles regardless of its relative importance to any given subject (i.e., all professional football players are categorized as such, even if they later became a Supreme Court justice). Medal/award/honors recipients have a purely binary inclusion question: either you did or didn't receive it. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, this is actually the kind of similarity that I was looking for: just as well as we would exclude hobbyists from a painters category, I would also exclude people from awards if there aren't reliable sources indicating that they received the award for a particular reason. Though actually you're saying that we can't put a threshold like that in the OCAWARD guideline because this guideline is only for determining whether categories should exist at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The best way to handle for a particular reason would be as shown in the following example. The Star of Fooland medal is awarded to people who have performed an act of extreme bravery and to senior civil servants. If you think having received the medal for one reason is a defining characteristic but the other isn't then create a subcategory for the defining one (e.g. Recipients of the Star of Fooland for bravery) and move the appropriate articles down into it - then take the parent category (Recipients of the Star of Fooland) to CFD. DexDor (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea for sure! Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems like Marcocapelle instead wants to question the merits of an award being given, which we would not do, while you're talking about an actual hypothetical classificatory difference in the award itself, maybe like the distinction between an honorary degree and one being awarded because of completing academic study. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Example Some awards separate the wheat from the chafe for us in an objective way: the real Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath is absolutely defining but everyone with a diplomatic passport that transfers planes at Heathrow is handed the fake Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on their way through the terminal. I see no reason to keep that subcategory around. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The ultimate question is what is a major award. I do not think that Hon KCB is handed out nearly as easily as suggested; it is not a fake award. A KCB who is a British citizen will be entitled to the prefix "Sir". If the British government wishes to honour a non-citizen, it will grant him an honorary KCB. If that person becomes naturalised, it will be converted to a full KCB. An instance of this is the late Sir George Solti the conductor. The grant of a KCB (full or honorary) is a mark of distinction, in WP terms notability. The difficulty that has arisen with some national award categories relates to ones granted as a diplomatic honour to foreigners, such as foreign heads of state, who accumulate vast numbers of such awards; these constitute category clutter. Whether we should allow an award category may need t depend not only on whether it is a major award, but on how often it is granted and to whom. The upper levels of certain orders are only granted to heads of state and such like and are probably better listified. The lower levels of others are granted so often and to people who are not necessarily notable that we should not have a category for them. British cases of this are MBE and CBE (order of British Empire); also CB (Companion of the Bath). However knighthoods in both orders are probably only granted to people who would be WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

PERFCAT

Can someone explain why having a category for something like "MASH actors" that only included those with reoccurring roles would be a bad idea? I just don't quite see it. Hobit (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT

In this discussion the question came up whether we can make the guideline WP:SMALLCAT more specific.

  1. In the above discussion, the suggestion was made to aim for a minimum number (5) articles per category.
  2. In addition, personally I would strongly favor something more specific about entire category trees, something like on average at least 2.5 articles per category whereas the average is calculated including the 0s of missing categories in the tree.

Please add your suggestions below. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, the more the merrier. We might also want to consider putting a notice on the current day's CfD discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Bearcat, BrownHairedGirl, Oculi, PanchoS, Nyttend, Johnpacklambert, and Hmains: @Beeswaxcandle, Sionk, Carlossuarez46, DexDor, Fayenatic london, The Bushranger, and Lugnuts: @AusLondonder, Dimadick, Black Falcon, Anarchyte, Ricky81682, Jackninja5, and Peterkingiron: asking for input on this discussion about the SMALLCAT guideline. If you feel some other people should be invited as well, don't hesitate to draw their attention to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
  • DELETE the current guideline in its entirety: Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.
  • REPLACE it with: "Avoid creating categories that have less than 5 (or 2 or 10) items. If a majority of categories overall in an accepted sub-categorization scheme have 5 (or 2 or 10) or more members, the set may be completed with smaller categories, for example with Category:Science museums in the United States by state. To avoid eponymous categories for people, works by people, such as Category:Songs by artist, may be grouped in small categories."
  • EXPLANATION: Unlike the rest of the WP:OC guidelines, I think WP:SMALLCAT encourages disagreements and drives away consensus. Over and over again, constructive editors create categories in good faith and then are brought before WP:CFD and have the rug pulled out from them (example) or we end up in philosophical discussions about what the heck the current guideline means (example).
We're also encouraging bad behavior here. Individual small categories are easy to delete, but if a single editor creates a whole tree of underpopulated categories, like Category:Junior college baseball coaches in the United States, but those are bullet proof because it magically becomes part of a "scheme". Also, category creators are forever promising to create additional articles to prove "potential for growth" when we should be focusing aiding navigation for the articles we have today. I really don't like this guideline.
But I don't feel strongly with where we make the cutoff: 2, 5, 10 articles. Whatever but let's set clear expectations. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that it's very difficult to make a more-or-less standardized cut-off level, because circumstances vary so much across different category schemes. Depending on the context, four articles in a category might be perfectly acceptable and commendable, but in another context, it might be woefully too small to justify existence of the category. For that reason, I always hesitate to state with certainty that x amount is too much or too little in every situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about tightening up the "accepted sub-categorization schemes" and excluding future growth? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As per Good Olfactory, I would say that "more than a few" is an acceptable term, because situations vary according to what is being categorised. It is impossible to fire fight the numerous editors who obsessively micro-categorise. My personal cut-off (and definition of "few") is more-than-one.
I would however suggest a sentence is added to WP:SMALLCAT along the lines of "Over-categorisation can hinder navigation through the category tree". I think another useful addition would be to discourage small categories if there is little scope for expansion "in the near future". For example Category:Bridges completed in the 15th century contains ridiculously specific categories. One could feasibly argue that another 20 years of Wikipedia development, along with historical research and new dating methods, will uncover exact dates of completion of many more old bridges, but it is impractical in the short term to have these categories. Sionk (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – the main criterion behind a category is 'does this capture a defining characteristic'? If the answer is yes then the number of articles is irrelevant. The defining characteristic of a novel is the author, of an album is the artist, of a song is the composer. In contrast the year of construction of a bridge is not defining IMO. Whatever the wording is, categories such as Category:Novels by Harper Lee or Category:Novels by Roark Bradford must be supported. Oculi (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to the idea, merely because it's further rule creep: normally it's good to have more articles and subcategories per category, but plenty of exceptions can and will exist, and we shouldn't attempt to codify this idea. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pinging me! Unfortunately, I'm not particularly convinced though that we already found a wording that's better than the rather flexible approach we had before. Luckily, we're a massively expanding encyclopedia, so it is perfectly alright that our current guideline primarily takes the number of reasonably expectable articles into account, rather than the number of currently existing articles.
    Example: Category:Universities in France by city or town IMHO isn't a well thought-out-scheme, as even with almost complete coverage, most cities apart from Paris would have only a single university or maybe two, if all miscategorized articles are purged. At the same time I would insist that Category:Schools in France by city is a reasonable scheme: though most per-city categories are even smaller than the ones about the cities' universities, they are not WP:SMALLCATs, as by their definition many articles are to be expected. They just happen to be small because French schools are massively undercovered.
    On the other hand we shouldn't assume full coverage in order to meet the guideline. Quite a number of small French villages may host five schools, but we wouldn't create a category scheme that only works if coverage is 100%. IMHO it's this reasonably expectable part of the definition that we want to translate into a guideline, and therefore we would need to compare to the same topics coverage in other countries/neighboring fields, and the number of contributors we can reasonably expect to bring this field's coverage on par. Suggestions welcome… --PanchoS (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Universities in Toulouse (which is currently proposed for rename) lists about 19 institutions so I don't see how combining into a single France category would improve categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Attempts to define a precise numerical threshold will fail, because circumstances vary. My own rule of thumb is "about 5", but that depends on circumstances: Category:Horsemen of the Apocalypse is not going to have more than 4 members unless/until we get to a point where Wikipedia ceases to exist, but a small category of people by occupation may grow as en.wp expands its coverage.
    Personally, I weigh size against likelihood of imminent expansion; the more the likelihood of expansion, the lower my acceptable number of current articles.
    There is an element of judgement here, and rule-creep here will simply alter the nature of the disagreements between editors who judge these cases at CFD -- they won't remove them.
    The proposal is on better ground with trees of small categories, which can indeed be a nuisance. I might support some sort of wording here, but note that the current wording is "accepted sub-categorization schemes". That word accepted covers it -- the current guideline offers no shield against upmerging or deleting all the subcats of a Category:Astronauts by county in the United States, even if the category had existed for years.
    However, it would be useful if there was a some sort of list somewhere where editors tried to keep track of CFD decisions in this area. Good Olfactory heroically maintained some very useful lists of CFD outcomes for several years, but I dunno if those are still updated or how specifically they covered these issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • My heroics on that petered out in April 2012. It wasn't that hard to maintain if you did it once per week. But the process is relentless, and I just fell behind and didn't have the energy to catch up. It would take a good chunk of time to catch it up. Of course, it could always just be started afresh. And in any case, SMALLCAT was one of the few areas I didn't bother tracking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally I am not a fan of "one size fits all" guidelines. There may be viable categories on historic topics with only a few members, like most of the subcategories of Category:Roman gentes. They separate huge categories on historic topics to more easy to navigate subtopics. And there may be huge categories which do not help navigation at all, like Category:Black-and-white films which has over 12,500 members, despite having a number of subcategories. Which category to use is always more of a judgement call than a hard rule. Dimadick (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I think "about 5" would be right. If a category never could have more, it ought to be upmerged. Eponymous categories are often best downmerged, so that a BIO-article becomes the main article for songs by foo or albums by foo. The argument on these is that they are part of an established category scheme. However, another answer might be to allow eponymous categories and to merge the songs and albums categories into an eponymous one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've skimmed the above and don't see a convincing argument for a change to SMALLCAT. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with the premise here but I think we'd be better off just adding examples and expanding the language. The main sentence should be broken up and examples of each provided. Something like breaking it at the end of "few members" with examples and then adding "The exception would be categories that are part of a large overall ...." The first type would be millennium categories for countries that only exist in a single millennium which Marcocapelle has brought up at CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • no change needed yet Instead of proposing solutions, we should first see whether there is a problem. What is the supposed problem with lots of small sub-categories within a category? A problem for whom? The reader or the editor? Once a reader problem is agreed upon, then what solution might be crafted to fix that specific problem without spawning yet more problems of some kind or another. Hmains (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Small categories can hinder navigation between articles in my experience. You have to zigzag up and down between the parent category and child categories to find any related articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No change needed - as Hmains points out, this is not a problem. There is, therefore, no need for a solution. And as BHG points out, you can't set a 'hard and fast' rule anyway. OC/SMALLCAT is a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing, and attempting to pin it down further will only lead to trouble. Let's not have a solution in search of a problem here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - don't have an exact number, have it say "around 5", so categories with 6 or 7 would still be applicable to the rule. I'd say anything above 8+ members is fine. Anarchyte 01:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion, I don't think there is any enthusiasm about setting a strict cutoff. Nevertheless the number of 5 is mentioned quite regularly. I would suggest to add in the guideline: for example 5 articles, with a reference to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion point that hasn't been addressed too often in the discussion so far: while I agree with everyone on keeping small categories in well-established trees, the question is more often: should we fell entire trees based on a too thin overall population? My point of view is that WP:SMALLCAT should (also) apply here, by means of looking at the average size of categories. Anyone else about this? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Thanks for the invitation and I agree because categories are made to navigate a bunch of pages involved (and even a few categories) but then again, even 5 seems a bit too small. With category trees, there are a huge amount of subcategories that can have all pages fit into their parent category so I say a minimum of around 6-7 for a category tree. However, that part is just a suggestion. Jackninja5 (talk)
  • Set as 5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Assistance requested with Full communion

I'm requesting assistance from someone well-versed with WP:CAT regarding proper categorization of Full communion. I recently reverted a user's categorization of "Full communion" based mostly on my understanding of WP:NONDEF, and they reverted back. I left a message on their talk page by way of explanation.

As this is my first time interpreting categorization policies to this level of detail, I could use some review of my talk page comment to either validate or correct my understanding as it applies to this article. If you can help, please see User talk:Chicbyaccident#Wrong category for Full communion. Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OCAWARD

Should we add "e.g. Category:Nobel laureates" in order to clarify that we mean really very few exceptions? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Automatic splitting of redundant categories

I have proposed a method of automatically recategorizing articles using Template:Category redirect. Jarble (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolving conflicts between (and within) PERFNAV, FILMNAV, and PERFCAT

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Resolving conflicts between (and within) PERFNAV, FILMNAV, and PERFCAT, which proposes mutually conforming clarification to both that guideline and this one, in a centralized discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Is WP:OCEPON useful?

I have been looking at eponymous categories for writers, as a result of a ping on my talk-page. My preliminary results are that the page counts in author categories come largely in three types:

  • 2 to 6 articles. Writer's life, bibliography, and a few others that don't fit into the existing subcats.
  • 20 to 30 articles, largely because a useful subcat has not been made. As with Category:Hans Christian Andersen or Category:Isaac Asimov, where a category of Things named after... would make the list of pages much shorter.
  • 20 to 30 articles, as with Category:Jules Verne, which includes things with weak and arbitrary links to the subject. (The Reform Club *is* one of the scenes of Around the World in Eighty Days, but it probably should not be in a Verne cat at all, and if it is, it should be in Category:Around the World in Eighty Days.)


Eponymous cats will tend to bounce back and forth between these, as articles are added and then recategorized or purged. Wiping out categories when they are at the low end, because their articles are successfully recategorized, discourages and destroys useful work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a need for limiting categories which actually do not contain much, and are never likely to, I can suggest two replacement standards:

OCAWARD exceptions

The section for WP:OCAWARD says "though there are a few exceptions to this"; how about adding some examples, such as Nobel laureates in Chemistry; Nobel laureates in Economics; Nobel laureates in Literature; Nobel Peace Prize laureates; Nobel laureates in Physics; Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

People associated with

Hi, I think this criterion should be expanded to other scopes, especially after finding an old Category:Films associated with Generation X CfD from the same day as Category:Cult actors. Explanation: Association of any object with any other object is as subjective/arbitrary as association of a person with the latter object. For example, there is no Category:Items associated with John McCain just as Category:People associated with John McCain does not exist. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Also all the other applicable classifications, as with the recent surge of eponymous CFDs for manga/anime series. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Does WP:PERFCAT apply to Category:Time Team?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Does WP:PERFCAT apply to Category:Time Team? I've been trying to clean up the category to remove the cast and crew of this programme, but this is being met with resistance. --woodensuperman 12:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:QI also [1] --woodensuperman 12:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team, as this category has been newly created, seemingly in the wake of this. --woodensuperman 14:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have several discussions on this and related matters: User talk:Woodensuperman#Time Team - 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC); Template talk:Time Team#This navbox and WP:PERFNAV - 12:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC); Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Proposal to amend WP:PERFNAV - 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC); Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team - 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC). If not WP:FORUMSHOP, this is certainly WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thankyou. I've been meaning to post something similar all afternoon, but as fast as I seemed to count them, the Hydra grew again. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's not forget Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Template:Time_Team either. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
That's merely a notification, permitted by WP:MULTI - no discussion is intended nor has any occurred. Did you intend to put this comment here? You had put it at the RfC listing (a bot-built page, and also a notification not a discussion) where it was overwritten by Legobot (talk · contribs) just over half an hour later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Most of the above relate to templates/navboxes, not categories. However, as someone created Category:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team while the discussions were taking place, best left for the deletion discussion of that category, so I'll close this rfc. --woodensuperman 07:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disability categories at the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article ‎

Opinions are needed with regard to the disability categories that were recently added to the Health and appearance of Michael Jackson article, as seen here, here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson#Category. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How small is a small cat?

WP:SMALLCAT indicates that categories that "will never have more than a few members" should be avoided. Well, what's a few? I started this CfD on the grounds that the category might qualify for deletion under SMALLCAT, but the consensus there seems to be that small cats should be those of five items or fewer? I'm fine with that interpretation, but I think the guideline should clarify that. Or if the feeling is that "a few" could be, say, twenty or fewer, that would be good to know as well. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose a definitive number. No matter where one draws the line, there will be grey area cases. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I would agree in general, but it becomes relevant when one is considering filing a CfD because they feel a category may fail SMALLCAT. I mean, sure, CfD is a consensus process anyhow, so if others disagree with the filer's assessment, no harm done, but it's still a waste of everyone's time at that point.
As an example, WP:FILMPLOT says most film plot summaries should be between 400-700 words. I don't think anyone's going to get upset if a plot summary is 715 words (though they may try to shorten it), but 800 words is clearly overly-long. I just think some clarification here would be helpful, and other editors at the CfD I filed appear to agree. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, we don't want a hard-and-fast rule for how big a category should be, but a guideline would be very helpful. While I've done my fair share of adding cats to articles, removing cats to articles, and participating in CFDs, it's rare that I actually use categories as a navigational aid, so I don't have a real practical sense of when a category is too small. The CFD mentioned above was a wake-up-call to me that my intuition of how big a category needs to be is different from other editors', as seen in some of the CFDs which SMALLCAT uses as examples.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I've got quite a low bar myself, if a category has three or more members I don't think it's worth wasting time with a deletion discussion. Sionk (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose language along the lines of "generally fewer than five members"? Should we go higher? DonIago (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I would go lower because categories are primarily if not exclusively aids to readers navigating their way. The most obvious alternative is a list in a See also section which needs to accommodate comparable topic articles, potentially linked by more than one theme. Too many items in See also is untidy and, unlike separate smallish categories, usually not broken up by theme. So, in cases whether there is no potential for growth, I would recommend:
    • One or two articles - definite delete
    • Three to four articles - fair case to keep
    • Five or six articles - strong case to keep
    • Seven or more - definite keep
Overall, it's certainly worth setting the number at which there should no debate to save time at CfD even if we cannot agree where the line should be exactly drawn.Greenshed (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is that five or six would be a fair case to keep, not a strong case, but I'd certainly yield to consensus on that. Currently the problem is we're not getting enough traffic here for a clear consensus. The discussion Marcocapelle linked to had a variety of opinions...at a glance, most of the ones that involved a number seemed to think five was reasonable, but, again, I'm flexible on that point. In any case, I don't see anything changing (and maybe it's not a big deal if nothing changes) unless we get some more traction here. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
True but not of that would stop us saying that seven or more articles constitutes a definite keep with fewer article perhaps acceptable but open to debate. If everyone here agrees with that it is better than nothing. Greenshed (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think "fewer than five" reads better than "fewer than seven or eight". I mean, this is a guideline that I don't imagine tends to be pertinent very often in any case, but the former would also set us up for fewer CfDs, if that was a concern. Unless we think there actually should be more CFDs in such cases, not fewer. DonIago (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I need to stop by this page more often! I would definitely favor a number being listed. I would get frustrated if I created a category in good faith based on my inerpretation of the vague WP:SMALLCAT only to have one of my categories nominated at CFD to find out it's usually somewhere around 5 articles that is needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd still be okay with language along the lines of "Generally avoid creating categories that are unlikely to contain fewer than five articles", but I didn't feel there was a strong consensus for that, or even a variation of that. DonIago (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps more like, "Categories of half a dozen or more are seldom deleted as too small". A vague suggestion of precedents, rather than a precise recommendation. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that too. At least it implies a recommendation. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart has been nominated for discussion

Category:Monuments and memorials to Amelia Earhart, which several editors thought might have broader implications for WP:SHAREDNAME. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Categorization

Re:

While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

Unclear. Who decides? So no e.g. "women scientists" anymore? Zezen (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources decide. LGBT literature is usually works of fiction where there is a L, G, B or T theme to the story, or where one or more of the main characters clearly falls into one or more of those groups. LGBT literature also includes books on identity and relationships. Both groups of works are of great interest to particular kinds of people. But how would you define "LGBT quantum physics"? Is it a variety of quantum physics that has formed a lasting and fulfilling relationship with another variety of quantum physics? It's meaningless. Perhaps the intention is to mean quantum physics that was worked on by a L/G/B/T person. That shouldn't matter, just as the relationship between Marie and Pierre Curie does not create "heterosexual nuclear physics". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"We do not categorise people by other people."

Is this true? Where's the policy for it? WP:OCEPON certainly doesn't say this.

The particular case is the (notable) child of a very notable parent, with a justified category for that parent. There's also an IP doing a bulk run of these, across many topics and knowledge areas. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does say exactly this: "As with all categories a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article)". See WP:COPSEP and WP:OCASSOC for other reasons why we don't do this. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"We don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is" will make "Sportspeople from Megametropolis City" too big

While this is reasonable for villages with, say, only one notable basketball player, this is an extremely bad idea for a big city like NYC.

I'll phone my friend BHG for input. ミラP 23:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean for a category to get "too big"? "Too big" for what? postdlf (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Postdlf: You know, 250 but especially 189? ミラP 00:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this one too big? It's presently got 1,103,925 pages (approximately). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: That's forgivable because it's a maintenance category. ミラP 00:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: having you phone me, you do realise I'll want a share of the prize?
I suggest a lot of caution in sub-categorising by city, because it has a habit of getting out hand. You start by subcategorising for a Megametropolis City, creating a category with hundreds of pages. Fine.
Then someone see that one, creates similar categories for other megacities. Now only a bit over a hundred pages. Okay, ish.
Then someone else sees those categories, and starts creating those categories for any million-plus city. Ummmm.
And before you can say "aaaarghhh", User:HyperactiveCategoriserWithAsMuchDiscernmentAsAnAmoebaOnDrugs is burning rubber in top gear as he goes on a joyride creating Category:Female wheelchair basketball players from Tinyville, Idaho, which is technically a city (because in the US even tiny places can gain city status) but has declined to a population of only 76 people. You may think that's an exaggeration, but a few years back we had an editor who was beavering away creating categories for a particular type of ologist from every small town in the PNW.
And when someone takes this forest of micro-categories to CFD, User:HyperactiveCategoriserWithAsMuchDiscernmentAsAnAmoebaOnDrugs starts a shitstorm, claiming that Category:Female wheelchair basketball players by city is now an established series, so per WP:SMALLCAT it shouldn't be deleted. And when you try to reason with them, you freeze to death because you've banged your head so hard against the wall that you've made a hole in the outside wall of your house, and now Storm Randy has moved into your bedroom and the snow is beyond head-height.
There are occasional exceptions, like that example of American expatriate soccer players in Germany. In that particular case, the intersection category both produced a big category and massively reduced category clutter on the articles. But those exceptions should be occasional, and I stand by my view then that the necessary conditions: the intersection categ must have a large size (say 100?), and the intersection catehgory replaces at least three other categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Stopping at the sport the athletes play works for me. ミラP 14:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW we should have a bot that does categorization like this (you know, detects when there are at least five people from a certain place who are of a certain sportsperson type), because I should be creating content, not doing some boring task like categorization. ミラP 01:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see an explanation of why a category would be "too big", and the numbers don't speak for themselves. "Too big" to do what? postdlf (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Centenarians?

When I went into the subcats of Category:Centenarians by nationality, I realized that almost none of these people are known for being centenerians (unlike Category:Supercentenarians, which should be kept). Should these be deleted as non-defining overcategorization? buidhe 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_14&oldid=1028352153"