Talk:Eugen Relgis

Way to many categories and projects
This article has far to many categories and projects. wp:overcategorization I removed a few what seem to be obviously peripheral projects, and a bunch of what look like less central categories, but there are still far to many projects and categories. Should only list those categories that are most appropriate, most characterisitic - the most apropos 4 or 5 (but even whittling it down to the most apropos dozen would be a good start.) There are also too many projects listed - again was this person particularly noted for being a librarian (e.g.) (is their major contribution to the world in the field of librarianship, or whatever), if not then consider removing said project. Zodon (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean we should introduce a WP:POV on which aspects of his activity are most important. Btw, where exactly is this "don't add too many projects" policy? As for the categories, I fail too see which categories overlap in this instance. Do we have him under a "Sociologists active in 1930", "Sociologists active in 1932" etc. system? Dahn (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see overcategorization above. The point is not to tag every little thing, but to get the cental, defining categories for this page.  What points are defining for this individual and their notability.
 * If Barack Obama can manage with a mere 37 categories, this page certainly doesn't need 72. If you have questions about the guidelines, then the talk page on the guidelines is a good place for them.
 * Did not say they overlap - just that they are excessive. Is this person really noted for being each one of these things.  (i.e. not just were they one, but did they make a major contribution to that group).  Zodon (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If they don't overlap, how do you distinguish between the "important" and "unimportant" ones without imposing a POV? What's more, the guideline you refer to is quite clearly about categories which do overlap, so I don't really need to go discuss it there - it simply doesn't apply here. And I don't see the point of the Obama analogy: Obama is very noted for being a few things, Relgis is moderately noted for being many things. Dahn (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To put it briefly, having too many categories detracts from the article. It overwhelms the reader, and essentially all categories become useless.  It also suggests attempting to overcompensate for somebody who didn't do anything of note.  (i.e. they didn't do anything that stood out, so they were just mediocre at a lot of things, whatever they actually did is buried fluff).  Somebody like Leonardo da Vinci is noted for being excellent at many things (a Renaisance man) but the article still manages with 30 some categories.
 * As far as NPOV, consider NPOV_tutorial.
 * If you were limited to saying 5 things about this person, what would they be?
 * The categorization should focus on what is the reason that they have a wikipedia article, not the characteristics of the person (i.e. why are they notable). also Categorization and Categorization of people
 * "Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person." Zodon (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me explain again: Relgis is not an actor with a law degree; he is a person who, based on what sources say (not on what I interpret to be "most important" about him) has had a contribution in many fields, and yes, they all are reasons why we have this article. Instead of lecturing me about how some categories don't belong here potentially, what say you actually read the text and then make suggestions that are based on realities, not on abstract analogies? Dahn (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did make suggestions based on the text, however you have so far rejected all of them.
 * Asside - no idea what happened on my recent edit. All I told it to do was to add the tag too many categories.  Wikipedia or my browser must have glitched in a major way to have cut out a big chunk of the article.  Zodon (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)