Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people/Archive 9

X people from Y descent overcategorization
People are often categorized by their descent. Are their any rules or guidelines on when to do this, and when not? Self-identification only? Going back X generations? I have read Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, but this doesn't seem to address the problem of where to stop.

The concrete examples I noted are Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, Prince Emmanuel of Belgium and Prince Gabriel of Belgium, three of the children of King Philippe of Belgium. All three are categorized in multiple "descent" categories, the most striking being Category:Belgian people of Portuguese descent. Their parents are both Belgian, and Philippe of Belgium is listed in the category as well. His parents are Belgian and Italian, and his father former king Albert II of Belgium, is listed in the same category.

The parents of Albert II of Belgium were Leopold III of Belgium, and Astrid of Sweden. Her parents were Prince Carl, Duke of Västergötland and Sophia of Nassau, his parents were Albert I of Belgium and Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium.

Finally, her mother was Infanta Maria Josepha of Portugal. Ah, the link is found. So, is it sufficient if one of your 32 Great-great-great-grandparents is from X to be labeled "of X descent"? I don't think this can be considered a defining or important characteristic of these people. Where do we draw the line? Personally, I would argue for grandparents, but opinions may vary of course... Fram (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it should be parents, no further, but perhaps in extreme cases grandparents. But definitely not further than grandparents. Otherwise this leads to category clutter. Ultimately we are all of african descent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorize all Icelandic names by first name
I think this revert was hasty. The reason given "Unsourced" is untrue. Both names I added as non-patronymic/matronymic, are alreadly in the source for the sentence I changed (as I said in the edit summary). I realize now however that this might be thought of as a widening of a narrow exception. I just thought I was clarifying how things are done in Iceland and thought the exception should cover all Icelandic name cases.

[I thought this policy also controlled WP:Persondata. That may have been an error of mine.] comp.arch (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This policy does not cover persondata. They are two separate beasts.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there then no objection to changing/correcting this policy (on your part)? Please do so (or I can). If no one objects here I assume that meant consensus. Regarding persondata, I'll keep in mind that, that is different. comp.arch (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bgwhite on that. I spent several hours in the past discussing on the matter. As far as I recall WikiProject Iceland was also informed and there was a discussion there too. The current version reflects the consensus gained after this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with him on what? The revert or "This policy does not cover persondata" that is not a problem. Not discussing WP:Persondata (here) only WP:SUR that is unrelated. I'm new to this, haven't seen the discussion or any arguments except "unsourced" that is bogus. comp.arch (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you are getting close to doing person attacks on my page and here. I reverted your edit as "unsourced" because you added material that *was* unsourced as you provided no reference.  It was added to an already sourced sentence.  The already present source did not back up your changes.   You added material to MOS without discussion.  You added material then used the addition to bolster your argument on another discussion.
 * Again, this is a discussion for sorting, not persondata. Magioladitis is saying to keep the status quo.  Magioladitis was part of discussions held at WikiProject Iceland and here on how to sort Icelandic names.  Bgwhite (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, did not mean for this section (or anything on your talk page) to be a personal attack. Maybe I'll refrain from editing for a while. This is not important enough for me. I just wanted to know about these things and tried to fix an error. Probably there is some rule about changing the MOS that I don't know about. I guess consensus can't be assumed there. Some of the things you say I did, I did but in error. Other are misunderstanding, I guess we all, me included should reread *this* section. comp.arch (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Categorization by previous occupation?
Should a person by included in a category by occupation after they leave that occupation (not necessarily retiring)? The specific article I'm looking at (and updating) is Russell Woolf who was previously an ABC radio and TV presenter, but has resigned from the ABC. Should he stay in Category:ABC News (Australia) presenters, Category:Australian radio personalities etc? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming he's achieved notability as an ABC News (Australia) presenter (see WP:COP), he should stay in that category. Categories should be for permanent characteristics (e.g. having achieved notability in a field) rather than for indicating current status (excepting special cases such as Category:Living people for administrative purposes). Note: We don't generally use "Former " categories for people (example CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If we removed categories as suggested, then dead people would be uncategorised. That someone held a particular role or position continues to be relevant even when they no longer do so, though of course the article should include dates and sourced info about any changes. Pam  D  08:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

by place
Having looked over our actual usage, I would say we are not following the directive of the by place category. We start off with "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This seems to suggest we should not put Mike Lee (U.S. politician) in Category:People from Mesa, Arizona since although he was born in Mesa his family moved away when he was under 2 years old. Yet my removal of Lee from the Mesa category was reverted and I was told "The consensus is a person being born in Foo has always qualified for being categorized 'People from Foo'." by User:WilliamJE where is this consensus?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I would not call the recommendations on this page to be "directives". They are guidelines. According to the tag at the top of the page:

"'This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus."
 * "Generally accepted standard," "common sense," "attempt to follow," "occasional exceptions" and "should reflect consensus" all make these guidelines fuzzy, not written in stone. Not every Editor working in Categories knows or agrees upon the "generally accepted standard" which is quite realistic because not every standard is written down. And the people who argue differently might believe they are using "common sense" to disagree or that the categories they are talking about are "exceptions".


 * Second, consensus is a messy, messy affair, it is not the 10 Commandments carved into rock. Consensus depends on a) the individuals who chose to participate in the discussion and b) the understanding, Editor or Admin, of whoever closes the discussion and c) the consensus today might be different from the consensus in a month. Look at how attitudes changed about the Actor/Actress/Male Actor categories changed, from swinging in one direction ("Everyone is an 'Actor'") to the situation now where we have Actresses and Male Actor categories in almost every instance. Bottom line: Practices "we all agreed to" might have changed because the "we" has changed...some Editors will no longer be active and new ones start participating. And sometimes, when pressed, the "we" turns out to be less than a dozen people and doesn't reflect a wide-spread consensus, just the opinions of the most active Editors at the time the question is posed.


 * Finally, Editors who are coming to respond to a notice about a CfD or have other questions about categories should not be expected to know everything about categorization. They are responding to a particular category or issue that concerns them. It often happens that categorization guidelines are mentioned in the nomination which is great but this doesn't always happen. And, unless they are disruptive, the participation of Editors new to CfD should always be welcomed, whether they show up for one CfD discussion or every day.


 * Please note, these points aren't directed to any person, just to the process of CfD and the guidelines that are used. I'm sorry if they sound too WP:Pointy. I just believe that, in their wisdom, the people who crafted these guidelines purposely made them flexible knowing that opinions about correct practices can change over time. And they do. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another by place question. Should we categorize an historical figure with residing in a place that was not recognized as a separately-named entity at any time during their lifetime? As far as I can see, the Categorization of People guidelines are silent on this issue, but my instinct would be to avoid such linking. Otherwise, for consistency, Angela Merkel would be identified as being from Prussia, and Jesus should be listed among Israeli Jews.

The current issue, discussed here, concerns a category reversion dispute about Leland Stanford, Jr, who (probably) spent time as a child residing near the future city of Palo Alto, California. The city was not established until several years after his death at age fifteen, and the actual location of the Stanford residence was not incorporated into the city until over half-a century later, which was long after the house itself had been destroyed. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your Merkell example is different from your Stanford example.   With Merkell, you are asking if a "past" category is ok.  With Stanford, you are asking if a "future" category is ok. As you mentioned, the Merkell example is not ok.
 * The Stanford example has a "depends" attached. If somebody lived in the British Isles during Roman times, they wouldn't be included in People from England. As the difference time gets closer or the association to a place gets stronger, then it can become ok.  If you died in 1720 at New York City are your an American?  Yes, even though there was no notion of "America", it was all colonies. If you died in Seattle, Washington in 1850 are you from Oregon or Washington?  Washington Territory was split from Oregon in 1853 and was originally called Columbia.  Yes, you would be from Washington, not Oregon.  Did Stanford live in the future Palo Alto and is he associated with the city?  Then it is a strong yes.   Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea that closer proximity in time should strengthen the potential for future categorization. Perhaps we should consider including a comment about that in the guidelines.
 * With regard to the specific Palo Alto category question, I think there's probably a reasonable argument for both Stanford parents to be associated with Palo Alto, even though neither actually lived there. As for their son - I can see no justifiable connection at all. jxm (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * About Stanford Jr... Looks like he lived in San Fran and Sacramento, so he should have "from" categories for those two cities.   Palo Alto is a hard one. I can see an argument made for either way.   This could be a case where the association to a place is stronger than the time lived there.  I wouldn't put Santa Clara County.  It is is either Palo Alto or nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Eponymous categories - Reconsidering the guideline WP:OC
The guidelines for creating categories named after people, which is of interest to this WikiProject, is being discussed to see if it still has consensus. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the Overcategorization talk page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ordering names in a category: names with prefixes
The suggestions for name sorting are proposed to follow the national conventions of the country that an individual might be from. This seems to ignore the overriding principle that this is en.wikipedia, an English language publication. Thus whether (for example) a Dutch catalogue would put 'van Aaardwolf' before 'de Wolff' is irrelevant: the recommended source, 'Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogue', is clear that in an English language directory, such prefixes are borne in mind in sorting. Any list of names in en.wikipedia is, by definition, an English language directory, so should be sorted according to the principles of the English language, and 'de Wolff' should precede 'van Aaardwolf'. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this point is more nuanced than "sort as the English do". Quite a few English speakers who are knowledgeable about the given topic (thus more likely to be searching the category system) will be expecting a native style sort in specific categories. From my own perspective, I would expect first name sorting in Category:Ethiopian long-distance runners (e.g. Haile Gebrselassie in H, not G. That said, this category is also a counterpoint because lack of knowledge about Ethiopians has meant this category is a complete mish-mash, which isn't desirable for anyone. I'm happy to support either English or native style sorting if a consistent approach is possible. SFB 08:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I very deliberately did not say that we should 'sort as the English do', and am rather annoyed that you put the phrase in speech marks. I said that we should sort according to the principles of the English language in regard to the use of prefixes.  Identification of the appropriate name to be indexed does of course follow the principles of the language in question, but whichever name that is carries prefixes as part of that name.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This subject has been discussed extensively in the past (see Archive 3, for example). We've gravitated to sorting categories the way articles appear in reputable English-language encyclopedias, like the Britannica, the way the Chicago Manual of Style suggests they should be indexed (chapters 18.69 to 18.85 are dedicated to it), and the way English language library authority controls, like the Library of Congress Authorities, sort them. Fortunately, these sources nearly always agree with each other. The authorities do not always follow the Style Manual rules perfectly, sometimes by mistake, but other times because they've specifically contacted people (e.g. emigrants authors) to ask what their preference is when standard rules are hard to apply. The Virtual International Authority File site is a great new way to find the way most everybody's name should be indexed (okay, not of most sportspeople) and a link to the VIAF entry is now a standard part of a bio.
 * By the way, you seem to have arrived here because you took issue with the sorting of Robin van Persie in a small table on the World Cup page. I doubt the guidelines on this page are meant to guide such small issues. Afasmit (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it has been discussed extensively and a consensus reached, that should be recorded somewhere as a policy, otherwise such consensus building is futile, except as ad-hoc dispute resolution. If the principles of 'Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogue' are not what has been agreed in discussion, it should not be the advice given at wp:sur.
 * Your final point is exceedingly patronising, though perhaps I should be flattered by your researching of my edit hstory. If one is seeking clarification on sorting surnames in a list, where better to seek clarification than in a section entitled 'Sort by surname'?  Kevin McE (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between sorting as English speakers do and "sort according to the principles of the English language in regard to the use of prefixes". It's the same thing to me, and I didn't intend to frustrate you. As I said, above I see the value is both systems. SFB 18:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No patronizing intended. I should have spelled out "small-scale issues", but give WP:GF a try: I tried to be nice by suggesting that this page on categories may not bind you on formatting a small table on a page. With respect to your first paragraph: you want the consensus that has evolved over the years to be on record, which is what this guideline page is. Wikipedia is messy: you won't find all discussions on sorting in this talk page's archives, as they were held at multiple places (I got only involved here) and a lot of negotiation has been done via edit summaries as well. Afasmit (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

By-century categorisation query
If a writer dies in 1999, but has a collection of their poetry published posthumously in 2001, does that make them a 21st-century poet? &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "sensitive categories"
Francis made a number of undiscussed changes to this guideline. Some of then I agreed with but the creation of a section on sensitive categories I removed since sensitive categories was rejected as a title for WP:EGRS and there is no agreement to use such a term in the guideline. Instead I simplified it (see edit history). As an alternative, I'm happy to revert all of Francis' undiscussed additions to discuss them all as a group, or we could discuss just the most recent tweak I made to his changes to see if people prefer his version or mine.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? The expression "sensitive categories" is used multiple times in the guideline since it existed some ten years ago. Really don't know what you're talking about.
 * Since WP:EGRS is not (nor will be in the foreseable future) used to define this concept, the guideline that uses the concept since it existed is the excellent place to define it. It should have been a long ago (my bad probably), but there is no argument to not clearly define it.
 * 's argument is evidently based on a misunderstanding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * before defining it, then we should discuss the definition here. I don't agree with the definition you had placed, and that doesn't seem to me to be the point of sensitive categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the definition I proposed:
 * Sensitive categories
 * Categories are defined as sensitive when they recur at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion giving way to extensive and convoluted discussions. This includes:
 * Categories relating to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, disability etc. as treated at WP:EGRS
 * Categories restricted by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates, e.g. categories that might suggest a person has a poor reputation and categories that belong in the categorization tree of Category:Criminals
 * Other categories with similar issues, whether or not they are treated explicitly in this and other guidelines and policies e.g. Category:Atheists, Category:Critics of religions, Category:Conspiracy theorists, etc., and related subcategories
 * Cross-section categories where at least one of the categories of the cross-section is sensitive.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC) No further objections then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change of scope. I do not believe the idea of sensitive categories is contiguous with categorisation by identity or view. While "sensitive" has appeared for a long time in the guideline it has not explicitly referred to this group of categories, but rather more to defining people with potentially libellous labels that do not represent the subject (e.g. criminal). The construction of the General considerations section since 2006 has been simply to list general considerations (hence use of furthermore after the sensitive statement), not sensitive considerations. SFB 16:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the General considerations section is not the only section referring to the concept of sensitive categories: also WP:COP does so, with category:atheists as an example. From the discussions when this part of the guideline was written it is clear that LGBT people (for instance) are included in the concept, the example might as well have been relating to those categorizations, or on a religious faith, etc...
 * There's no extension of the scope, the scope of the guideline is as explained in the lede: "this guideline was developed in response to some prolonged Categories for discussion procedures that debated the categorization of people in articles." These categories didn't become less sensitive over time, proof of that is the recent "categorygate" which was about gendered categories. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed language change to WP:COP
To align the language with how categorization is currently practiced in wikipedia, I proposed the following change - for now the below is a draft, so please don't !vote yet, just comment on how to improve it first.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

From: "Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized (in terms of occupation) only by the reason(s) for the person's notability."

To: "Occupations/jobs/roles and membership in clubs, and categories relating to stances on issues (e.g. "Critics of X") should only be categorized if they are relevant to a person's notability."

Standard categories: A number of "standard" categories can be placed on any biography regardless of whether the characteristic in question is closely linked to the notability of the person. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following:
 * 1) Year of birth and year of death
 * 2) The place(s) people are closely associated with being from (e.g. )
 * 3) Awards received
 * 4) Being alumni of a school
 * 5) Political candidacies
 * 6) Intersections of characteristics - i.e. if the person is a woman, and a novelist, she can be placed in subcategories of  even if "Woman" + "novelist" is not WP:DEFINING of her work. The same applies for intersections of nationality, ethnicity, and sexuality. The only exception is religion or other philosophical views; we should not intersect religion + occupation/nationality categories unless the subject's religion is relevant to their public life.

Discussion (COPN)
template:trivia --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel that way, and I suppose you're unlikely to support this. (that said, this is a very snide way to reply to a good faith suggestion) However, having dealt with categorization of biographies for a very long time, and having de-ghettoized hundreds of biographies, I can assure you that this is standard practice. If someone went to a university -> alumni cat. If they are black, then they get "african-American" + "every other category they are in". If they are a woman, or a lesbian -> "woman" + "every category" and "lesbian" + "every category". Look at any of our featured articles, which get thousands of page views, with hundreds of watchers, and you will see the same thing, for very famous people, a LONG list of categories at the bottom.The main areas where there is resistance to adding new categories is (a) religion - e.g. not everyone who is catholic is so-categorized and (b) jobs/occupations/roles/club memberships - in this case, we apply the WP:DEFINING test - is actor X really known as a ? Otherwise, the evidence and silent consensus of thousands of editors across tens of thousands of biographies is that most of these biographical categories, such as the ones enumerated above, are intended to be filled with everyone who fits, regardless of the extent to which it "defines" them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A great example is Ellen Degeneres - she is in the following categories:

Now, does Ellen really pass the defining test for all of these various intersectional categories? Probably not. However, she is clearly notable as a lesbian, and she is notable as several jobs, so she gets LGBT+(each job she has). That's just the way things work here. Trying to enforce something different is just likely to lead to lots of complications - e.g. "Yes, I know she's a woman, and I know she's a writer, but she's not really a "woman" writer, is she?" It's ultimately a waste of time. If we want to trim categories on bios, we should focus on eliminating jobs - which are numerous over one's lifetime, as opposed to trying to eliminate other things, which are much less so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think we should do:


 * 1) Delete the "descent" categories (don't categorize by the ethnicity/nationality of the persons great^n-grandparents).   (that removes 4 categories from Ellen)
 * 2) Delete (listify if necessary) the award recipients categories.  (that removes 4 categories from Ellen)
 * 3) Delete the "from" categories (that a famous person lived in Fooville for a while may be of interest in Fooville, but isn't really defining).  (that removes 2 categories from Ellen)
 * 4) Delete the "LGBT+from" categories.  (that removes 2 categories from Ellen)
 * 5) Delete the "occupation+from" categories (upmerging the occupation if necessary).  (that removes 5 categories from Ellen)
 * 6) Create a "Lesbian" category.  (that adds 1 category to Ellen)
 * 7) Delete the "LGBT/Lesbian+occupation" categories (upmerging the occupation if necessary) and replace them with a link showing how to use category intersection. (that removes 4+ categories from Ellen)
 * 8) ...    DexDor (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, category intersection is the way to go. Meanwhile we need to solve the problem in front of us. Francis is trying to tighten the language and assert that woman novelists would be removed from any women novelists for whom we haven't established that women+novelist is notable (vs woman and novelist individually). It would also remove award winners if such awards aren't referenced by the majority of reliable sources when referring to the person or an ongoing part of their notability. None of this matches current practice, which I'm attempting to encode in the policy through the draft above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * imho you're misreading DexDor's comments: Create a "Lesbian" category ... Delete the "LGBT/Lesbian+occupation" categories... does not amount to ...yes, category intersection is the way to go. Of course I only want to speak for myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions to COP#N - Proposal 2
Starting from the current language: I propose to go back to the older language: I see no reason to extend non-notability related yet defining categories beyond year of birth, year of death and nationality.

I see as positive reasons for such limitation:
 * avoid that the list of categories at the bottom of a biographical article turns into some sort of listcruft.
 * categories should be about: what is essential to know about this person, a quick overview.
 * category pages should be kept easy to maintain, not about farming ancilliary documentation about people.
 * policy reasons, e.g. WP:NOT#LINKFARM of internal links

Above several extentions of non-notability related characteristics are offered:
 * 1) include non-defining place(s) people are closely associated with being from (e.g.  even if this is non-defining for the person)
 * 2) *some person live/lived in many places: naming the places should be limited to those places that left a remaining trace for the person for the persone whose biography is given: for example, if not mentioned in the biographical article with a reference to a reliable source that this place was significant for this person there should be no categorization for all the places a person has lived.
 * 3) include non-defining awards received
 * 4) *mayor awards are defining, no problem there. Smaller awards only confirming the big awards are not defining, and should not be included.
 * 5) include alumni of a school categories, even when non-defining
 * 6) *Wikipedia is not an extended yearbook. When the school is defining (e.g. started a new artistic movement with fellow-students from the same school) of course it should be included.
 * 7) include political candidacies, even when non-defining.
 * 8) *any candidacies, when defining, should be included. Not every candidacy is (e.g. being candidate for the city council of a small village while running for president is the really defining candidacy)
 * 9) include non-defining intersections of characteristics, for example if a person is a woman, and a novelist, she can be placed in subcategories of  even if "Woman" + "novelist" is not WP:DEFINING of her work. The same applies for intersections of nationality, ethnicity, and sexuality. The only exception is religion or other philosophical views; we should not intersect religion + occupation/nationality categories unless the subject's religion is relevant to their public life.
 * 10) *every categorization should be weighed on its own merits, not by the seperate components of the category name. The other option would lead to unbalance: overcategorization in some fields (while many categories available and for instance non-diffusing per WP:EGRS), lack of representation in other fields, while the combined categories don't exist there).

When commenting below, when applicable: please indicate clearly *which* exceptions you would like to see added to WP:COP#N, and please give a clear reason why.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All of those listed above should be "exceptions", indeed they should not be thought of as exceptions, rather for COP#N we should enumerate the (rather few) fields for which we actually strictly apply the DEFINING/notability/etc test. The above is an expressed desire to limit the number of categories, however in practice this is difficult - when going through a list of winners of prize X, must one really attempt to discern if the winning of said prize is worthy of being noted? Similarly, if one is known to be a woman, and known to be a novelist, must one really reflect carefully before placing this person as a woman novelist? People do categorization en-masse, especially such intersections - adding the requirement that we establish a DEFININGNESS or NOTABILITY test for such intersections is just a barrier to categorization. If you think a particular category is useless, the proper course is to delete the whole category. If it's decided that a category can exist, like, it would be folly to walk through the several thousand articles categorized there and remove ones where we felt that "women novelist" was not a defining descriptor of them, even if "novelist" was.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is the wrong way to go about proposing this change, Francis. The current undeclared consensus is that all the above constitute valid forms of categorisation because people don't apply the notion of notability when categorising. As I've stated above, I think the language of WP:DEFINING should be mirrored here – not the creation of a heavily notability-based category system (which I haven't seen widely in practice).
 * For example, I have never seen anyone support active maintenance of an award category to excludes some of the winners on the basis that the award was not an aspect of their notability (while for those present it is). My position is that this makes category maintenance more difficult not easier – would we need hidden notes to explain why each category that could be added to a person (but isn't there) has been excluded? If not, how do we prevent dozens of editors making the mistake of re-adding the category? Where is the consensus on notability of a certain category for an article subject stored? The defining criteria as applied now actually simplify the process. If you believe we shouldn't be categorising certain things – ethnic descent or alumni, for instance – then please nominate the tree for deletion and let the discussion show why people think it is defining or not. While there is logic to your proposal, I don't think it there is any support for it. The above discussions have been more aimed at application of LGBT type categories and issues present on a couple of specific articles – not the overhaul of the categorisation culture of "cat when defining" + "delete bad cats through consensus at WP:CFD" (which the silent majority clearly see as satisfactory). SFB 09:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal 2
Note to participants joining this discussion. In spite of my requests, Francis has still not reverted his recent change made to the guideline absent any consensus on the talk page, and indeed this change was made against my strenuous objections (similar content was reverted multiple times before). Francis claimed elsewhere that he mistakenly believed this edit had consensus, but even after I clarified this was not the case, he has steadfastly refused to revert this change, which dramatically changes the scope of WP:COP and makes it apply to ALL categories instead of just occupational ones. I think it is inappropriate for Francis to make a change to the guideline and then canvass people to come comment on additional changes, so I felt it best if people were informed that the current version of the guideline does not represent consensus, I haven't reverted myself as I (and Francis) were recently blocked for edit warring, so I'm trying to talk things out, but he's not responding or showing any willingness to discuss reverting this unilateral change to a policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be good, if neither of you edit this guideline without consensus, I have undone the edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions to COP#N - Proposal 3
Starting from the current language: I propose to go back to the older language: Reasons: see above --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal 3

 * Support as nominator. Below nobody was able to demonstrate there would be any difference (nor even any friction) between defining and notable for + standard biographical details for people categorizations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal to remove notability
I fundamentally disagree with this edit that applied WP:Notability to the category system. Viewing the discussion at the time of that change, no editor other than DexDor agreed that notability should be applied outright – the sole supporting editor specifically raised questions around that kind of application. The introduction of this section also brought immediate dissent from several editors. The pre-existing idea of "defining characteristics" was suggested as a better choice. Notability has never concerned non-article aspects of Wikipedia.

The above proposals by Francis Schonken are looking to square the circle – exceptions to the rule are only needed because the link with notability fundamentally does not work, does not reflect consensus, and is not reflected in current usage. I propose immediate removal of reference to notability in this category guideline and the initiation of a discussion of including a summarised version of the widely-supported WP:DEFINING criteria. SFB 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * agree with counter proposal. The purpose of categorization is to help readers find related articles.  Notability goes against this purpose and the proposal above makes things even worse. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with an article being in many categories if that is what it takes to achieve the purpose of categorization: navigation. Hmains (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * agree with counter proposal. I agree with Hmains. The goal here is to help find people. Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * disagree
 * an easier link to the archived discussion of 2012: Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive 8
 * categories is also what is visible at the bottom of the page, that's a concern too (no trivia list etc...)
 * easy navigation is a myth without the notability aspect. I've done some work on categorizations lately and what I found was appaling. Needed to click half a dozen times to link two people living in the same region, same language, same occupation.
 * if you want to see a discussion with more participants, more agreement, etc... there is a section retrieved from an archived talk page enclosed in above.
 * I agree with 's take on this. See also above, the example DexDor gave at --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the main problem you're experiencing (not finding similar people in close categories) is actually a technical problem, not a policy one – Category intersection would solve this. This would allow people to appear in all the relevant parent and child categories at the same time. German Wikipedia tries the opposite approach, so Jack Nicholson is listed in a category with all men and also with all American people, but it doesn't solve the technical issue of allowing readers to request for "Men+American+actor+born 1937+New York people" to see if anyone else fits that intersection. Removing defining categories from an article would actually disrupt this kind of solution. SFB 20:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping defining categories, so I'm not sure what you're actually talking about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "is actually a technical problem", no it was not. The problem is about people going clueless. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your above proposals are for categorising via notability-based characteristics (with exceptions). This is de facto a departure from categorising by defining characteristics. I can see that the exceptions you've stated above are the only non-notability based features that you consider defining, but that is only your definition of defining characteristics. Others may find your proposal excludes characteristics that they interpret as defining. SFB 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. I mean, finding consensus on what is defining and what is not. Actually, it's the same discussion. Anyone can agree (I suppose) that things someone is notable for are already defining. So, the bulk of categorizations is already out of the way. Then there's the known standard biographical details, no real discussion there either I suppose. Then there's categories like Category:Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm — do we accept them as defining? Do we accept them as a standard biographical detail? Same difference as far as the discussion goes, and also: the real discussion I'd like to concentrate on (I mean: the discussion of whether there's consensus for such categories or not).
 * Now maybe have a look at how DexDor proposed to treat the Ellen Degeneres cats above in . As far as I can see DexDor worked through the list along the lines of WP:DEFINING. Or along the lines of the 2012 version of WP:COP#N. If you see differences, I'd be happy to hear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, with counter proposal. Categories are just aids to research, not existential formulas. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, with counter proposal. I have a related proposal to update the WP:DEFINING language at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, your input is welcome there. Notability should not be brought into this, rather we should refine DEFINING and simply reference it here. I still think it is useful nonetheless to have a list of exceptions, e.g. categories which we always will add regardless of "defining". I listed the known exceptions at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people, your input welcome on those.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the list is necessary. Place of birth and dates of existence are obviously defining for a human being. No basic biography is complete without them. The other four types listed (awards, alumni, candidacies, intersections) should be up for debate as much as any other category (e.g. occupation, citizenship) and do not need enshrining as protected areas. SFB 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * At the top of this thread there are statements that it was me (DexDor) who (first) applied WP:Notability to categorization. That is incorrect.  Category:People by occupation (and hence its subcats) has been based on notability since 2005/2010 and even the previous WP:COP text included "career was notable in its own right". DexDor (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't categorize people by every occupation/hobby that's mentioned on their article; it would lead to some articles being in many categories (e.g. "[She] taught skiing in New Zealand, became a waitress in Hawaii, then spent five years as a stewardess for Qantas Airways and a brief time as an au pair in Paris. In 1981 she returned to Los Angeles and decided to become an actress."). Categories like Category:Flight attendants would be much less useful for navigation if they contained hundreds/thousands of articles about people who did that job before becoming notable for something else. Hence I oppose the proposed change to remove the reference to notability. DexDor (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My counter-proposal does not suggest Sachi Parker should be categorised by every single job she has done. The proposal is to allow people to make the decision of whether occasional au pair, waitress and stewardess work is a defining aspect of Parker's life (most will clearly consider those as non-defining). Is your argument actually that you think notability criteria should be applied to occupational categories? Your previous statements around exceptions to the notability for categories rule seems to be for all non-occupational ones. SFB 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give any examples where a person is notable for a particular occupation but you would not consider that occupation to be a defining characteristic of them - or vice versa ? Category:Fooers should be (just) for notable fooers.  That way the categories are useful for navigation (some editors will take any opportunity to add non-defining cats to articles) and we avoid unnecessary complication in the category system and its guidelines. For categorization to be most useful it should be applied consistently and if it's just left to article editors without (simple) guidance then it won't be. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Barack Obama is a good example. Without his political career, he probably would not have been notable as a lawyer. But that part of his career has been a defining aspect of his life and subsequent political career. What do you make of non-occupation categories? SFB 22:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO Barak Obama is notable as a lawyer - if I was clearing out Category:Lawyers then I certainly wouldn't remove the category tag from his article. Consider someone who had a job (e.g. farming, military, factory worker) which did not make them notable, they had a serious injury (e.g. loss of limb/sight) and then became notable (e.g. as disability rights campaigner or para-athlete). Their former career is a factor that led to them becoming notable, but we shouldn't categorize them for that - e.g. if someone saw a TV programme that shocked them into becoming a (notable) campaigner on some issue we shouldn't categorize that person as a TV viewer. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What about Bradley Manning, whose work as a US Army soldier and time in Iraq in themselves are not notable (the whistleblowing is the notable aspect)? SFB 06:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (not wanting to interfere in this conversation I hope there's no objection to chiming in?) (1) also the transgender topic and namechange are notable for Manning, which makes also (US) Army combined with Transgender notable; (2) the whistleblowing is notable in large part because Manning was part of the US Army, and more precisely in Iraq; (3) there's nowhere in the guideline that categorizations should be limited to the single most notable aspect, it's always about the set of most notable/defining aspects, which for Manning would be something like "US military in Iraq who became a WikiLeaks connected whistleblower, for which he is serving a sentence in prison, and who transgendered"; (4) that being said there's some overcategorization going on in Manning's article, for instance Category:Iraq War legal issues is not part of the people categorization tree, and should not include persons (note that United States v. Manning is correctly included in that category, and should not be doubled by including the person in that category). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and undercategorization in other fields, eg. NYT characterizes Manning in a single sentence as a "former United States Army intelligence analyst", why is the Manning article not included in category:American intelligence analysts (and/or in a category relating military intelligence analysis)?
 * I agree with Francis. Manning became notable for what (s)he did (unofficially) as a soldier so there's nothing wrong with that article being in Category:Soldiers.  Similarly a soldier-spy or a doctor-murderer should be categorized both as a criminal and by their employment.  WP:COP shouldn't prevent that categorization - maybe clarification of the guidance (e.g. an example) would be an improvement, but COP#N is needed (unless we want, for example, Clint Eastwood categorized as a grocery clerk and firefighter). However, if someone has truly achieved notability in many fields (example) then they can be in many occupation categories. DexDor (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I added "and/or relevant to his acting career" to the existing example in order to cover that --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment — see related discussion at WT:EGRS - someone thinks the "defining" concept entirely unpractical for categorization. I don't agree, but I do think the clarification ("defining characteristics" for biographical articles =equals= standard biographical details + the characteristics the person is best known for) useful, in order to avoid qualifying "defining" as a vague concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How about this: [1] add the following to the definition of Categorization of biographical articles in Categorization of people:"The main biographical article of a person is the single main namespace article named after that person. When there are split-outs, the main biography should be a summary style article (see Naming conventions (people))."

[2] in Categorization of people, replace:"* Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable
 * See also: Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics
 * Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized (in terms of occupation) only by the reason(s) for the person's notability. 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 and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.
 * Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization."

by:"* Categorize by defining characteristics
 * Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
 * standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
 * the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for.
 * 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 and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.
 * Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization."
 * Similarly, none of the celebrities commercializing a fragrance are listed in the perfumers category: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization."

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I disagree with using "best known for" (BKF) - if a person is (genuinely) notable in several fields (example) then they should be categorized for each of those fields and BKF depends on who you ask and when. You haven't explained what the exact changes proposed are (and why). Incidentally, I also disagree with the insertion of "and/or relevant" as that's likely to make it harder to use/maintain these categories. DexDor (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I just try to get rid of the "underdiscussion" tags that have been up for too long. As the counter-proposal is apparently going nowhere consensus-wise, and nobody else is taking initiative to produce a wording proposal, I'll be going for my, the only one currently having a 100% support after a month and half of being up here.
 * On the content of DexDor's remarks:
 * I wrote "the characteristics (plural, emphasis added) the person is best known for" in my proposal above, which is something else as BKF (singular). I think it a helpful alternative phrasing of "the reason(s) for the person's notability". Re. "(it) depends on who you ask and when" — platitude: we look it up in reliable sources. When being a dog trainer is one of the characteristics a person who has a biographical article in wikipedia is best known for (a.k.a. one of the reasons for this person's notability) we list the person in Category:Dog trainers, etc. — simple as that.
 * Re. what explanation: I quoted existing and proposed versions next to each other above — what else can I do?
 * Re. why explanation: see all the previous discussion, starting from (and all other previous discussions linked to from these sections). I could make a personalized summary of all this, but I suppose you'd still have to read the rest to see how others defend their case.
 * Re. "and/or relevant" if an actor has a previous career as an erotic dancer, a career not notable in its own right, and then has a first major success appearing in a dance film, then the previous career is somehow relevant to the acting career and we apply the erotic dancers category (see Channing Tatum). Don't see how this is relevant to category maintenance issues: such categorization is correct, and that's the kind of categorization we should do.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No further objections then? I'm leaning towards implementing the last solution I proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Implemented --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought for Categorization of people
Hello.

After this discussion with User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, I'd like to propose an addition or a clarification to bullet point "Keep people categories separate", which says that non-people articles should (normally) not be placed in (set) categories intended for people.

The addition/clarification would in essence mean "and vice versa", i.e. that people articles should not be placed in non-people set categories. A common occurrence is that of editors erroneously (at least in my view) placing people articles in set categories that are not intended for people, most often a category intended for some kind of scandals, such as Category:Political sex scandals in the United States, or its subcat Category:State and local political sex scandals in the United States.

These categories are in my view intended for (articles on) scandals, not for (articles on) people. People are not scandals.

The section "Special conventions" on WP:CAT says it well, when elaborating on the difference between "Category:Opera" (a topic category) and "Category:Operas" (a set category): "... while Operas is a set category (containing articles about specific operas)".

Similarly, scandals categories (that are set categories) should contain articles about specific scandals – not articles about people. Note that scandal categories that are topic categories, e.g. Category:Lewinsky scandal, can and will (for obvious reasons) contain people articles.

I'm not sure how to word this myself, so what can be done to complement or clarify the guidelines?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the linked discussion, the people that are in these categories often have notability in large part because of their scandals. But those scandals are not large enough to warrant their own article. Should we not allow our readers to easily access these scandals through these categories? I think the choice is obvious. These people are often notable only for their scandal and thus should be obviously found within the scandal category. Maybe that's an overly simplistic view, and I am definitely open to being convinced that I'm wrong, but I'd love to hear a third editor's opinion. Cheers!  Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors   20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect user IHoES (TL:D R W name) is concerned about wiki readers not being able to find information in wikipedia about scandals and people involved in them even if the information's there in some form. Kind of "I don't remember the guy's name, and not exactly what he did, but I know it when I see it, so let's look in the scandal category tree". That's absolutely a valid point, but there are other ways to solve that problem, and still retain the integrity of the category trees. You just have use a little imagination, and combine that with the WP guidelines. You can, for instance, create redirects, and categorize them in order to facilitate searching via the category trees.


 * Here's my view on how one can go about that.


 * If a person is not notable despite being involved in a (notable) scandal, then there should be no article on him/her. A mention in the article on the scandal is enough. The article on the scandal should be categorized in "Category:Xxxxxxxx scandals". Optionally, there could be a mention of the person in "List of xxx scandals" type of articles, and, possibly, a redirect from the person to the article on the scandal.
 * If a person is notable only or mostly because of his/her involvement in a (notable) scandal, then there could be an article on him/her. The article on the person could be categorized in "Category:People involved in (generic type of scandals) scandals" (a people category), but not in any scandal category, unless the scandal has an eponymous topic category, or a "Category:People involved in the blablabla scandal" category.
 * If a person is notable regardless of his/her involvement in a (notable) scandal, then his/her involvement will of course be in both articles (but probably from different perspectives). The person could be categoried in "Category:People involved in (generic type of scandals) scandals", but not in any scandal category, unless the scandal has an eponymous topic category, or a "Category:People involved in the blablabla scandal" category.


 * If, on the other hand, the notability of the scandal is in doubt, but it's mainly connected to a certain (notable) person, it could be solved this way:
 * If the scandal is not notable enough to have an article on it, a redirect named "Blablabla scandal" pointing to the notable person could be created. That redirect could then be placed in the appropriate scandal categories (where it will appear in italics).


 * Regards


 * HandsomeFella (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

--that is, Categorizing redirects, sections 1.2–1.6 rather than sections 1.1 and 2:
 * Re placement of redirects in article categories
 * Article categorization of redirects provides navigation only down the category tree, or downward navigation. We provide general navigation if [1] we retain in the target footer all the article categories of incoming substantial redirects (replicate at, rather than relegate to, those redirects), or [2] we provide/instruct navigation to incoming redirects that are substantial (those which are or should be placed in article categories), or [3] "we" upgrade the software to provide instructions or tiered or integrated category lists that are practically equivalent to [1] or [2].
 * What I say here about article categories is true also of interlanguage links
 * [2] we provide/instruct navigation to incoming redirects that are substantial. For illustration see Janet and Allan Ahlberg [current version], end of page --following any stub tags, which the example page does not include-- (quote)
 * See more categories and inter-language links :, ,
 * --P64 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with relegation of some article categories to incoming redirects--rather than replication there; placement of both target and redirect in the category. But I know that others are happy to do the same only with a collection of article categories that differs from my own happy collection, and others are unhappy with any such relegation. We may expect that unhappy editors will judge that the recommendation to relegate, to maintain set-theoretic integrity of the category system, is a guideline to be broken.
 * --P64 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that input. I wasn't aware of that part of the guidelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that you previously misunderstood. My comment is general; it bears on categorization of people pages only as a special case. Having expressed myself here, I posted much the same to redirects discussion, WT:RE.


 * My comment does not directly address the narrow point defined by the section heading, re categorization of people, because both Janet and Allan Ahlberg and are people pages --in contrast to a scandal page and associated scandalous person page, or murder page and murderer page. (FYI, one pair where the event is the redirect and the person is the article:  and Charles Whitman.)
 * Someone may object to mixing people and non-people in categories, yet accept both the Ahlbergs joint biography and the Janet Ahlberg redirect in . That doesn't bear on my comment, which concerns redirects from and to people pages only as a special case. My point generally concerns a tactic in category system maintenance --relegation of some categories from target articles to redirect pages, or replacement of target articles by incoming redirects in some categories-- regardless of the kinds of entities the pages denote. I recommend WT:RE for general discussion and I posted cross-references at WT:CATP and WT:CAT-R. --P64 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize that your comments are general. My request for input may refer to a specific case, but is nevertheless also generic in its character. Regarding the case with Charles Whitman, I have objections to some of the categories. "Matricides", "School massacres in the United States" should be moved to the redirect. Per the citation on Operas above, these categories should contain specific matricides and specific school massacres, respectively.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Approximate year of birth or death
Please would interested editors help to re-categorise ancient people by year of birth and death? See the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#BC births and deaths categorizations.

Also, an issue has just come up there about people for whom the exact year is uncertain: in such cases, is it better to categorise by an approximate year of death, or by decade of death? The latter would give a more untidy result on the decade pages because of the new "rollup" code which was wanted at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#RfC: BC births and deaths categorization scheme; see Category:40s BC deaths for an example in practice. Please respond at the bot request talk page (see link above). – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Easier access to biography articles via subject surname?
Is it possible to create a category, or category-type listing, sorted by DEFAULTSORT, to include all biographies (living, dead, unknown), so that a link could be made to the list of surname entries for a given surname, to add to dab or surname pages? (Like this link for living people with surname "Leeds", but to include the dead and dubious too).

Watchers of this page might like to comment on an idea I've described at Village_pump_(idea_lab). Pam D  15:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can sort of do this for talk pages using Category:WikiProject Biography articles. Not great for linking from article space.  There may be a Lua solution, but there may not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

Proposed change to Categorization of people
The first paragraph states currently

"'The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.'"

Unfortunately, that's not true. The place of birth is something people carry on ther backs throughout their lives. Every time you fill in a form with your personal data, it's asked and answered. Ledes start with, let's say "Scottish-born American footballer", almost all biographical sources state birthplaces routinely. Besides, all bios I've seen here on Wikipedia categorize people by their birth place as "People from Somewhere", so there seems to be consensus about this. I was extremely surprised to see this part of the guideline on place categorization, and couldn't believe it exists. I propose the following changed wording.:

"'The place of birth is defining for an individual, and should be added in Category:People from Birthplace'. People who remained at their birthplace, and engaged in other categorizable activities there, should be diffused into subcategories, if there are any. People who left their birthplace, and engaged in categorizable activities elsewhere, should remain in the parent category, and should be added to the subcategories of the place of activity.'"

Please comment. Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%, it is absolutely defining, every obituary and biography mentions it. We categorize people by their birth year even if they lived 12,000 miles apart. I also have no clue what "significant from the perspective of local studies" means. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "all bios I've seen here on Wikipedia categorize people by their birth place as "People from Somewhere", so there seems to be consensus about this." Does someone know how commonly the People-from categories are used to identify people by birthplace? --P64 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Category:People from Foo" has no time stamp or length-of-time to it. They could have been from Foo at birth or death or anytime in between for any amount of time. They could have lived there four years while in college or 90 years from birth to death. "Category:Births in Foo" and "Category:Deaths in Foo" come with an inherent time stamp to the year. Categories are harmonized where the infobox is not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Faulty, but fixable. There's a germ of an idea here, but most of this is not workable. "The place of birth is defining for an individual" is false on its face; for many people it is not. It should say "may be' or "is often". We should not always include place of birth. Somepeople people are born on boats or even in airplanes over the ocean. Some are orphans who do not find out their birthplace until later. I myself "came knocking early" and was born in a town where my parents pulled into closest hospital, a state away from their home, while on the way home from visiting relatives, and I have never spent more than a few days in state in which I was born. Some people are activistic haters of their birthplace and do not want to be connected with it. Some lie about their birthplace. Etc., etc., etc. It should be included only when relevant. That's probably 99% of cases.  Secondly, the envisaged "do it this way this case and comletely differently that other case" will never be practical. We have a great deal of difficulty getting people to categorize correctly even when the matter is very simpple; this scheme would be unknown by almost everyone, poorly or misunderstood but most of those who do, ignored by some of them as WP:CREEP / WP:BUREAUCRACY, defied by others, and forgotten by most of the rest.  Readers would just be very, very confused, since sources will tell that that so-and-so was born in Boston but she'll be missing from that cateory and only found in the parent cat for Massachusetts, where they would proably not look. The end result will be redundant categorization and both, and a constant slow-motion editwar, perhaps even performed bot redundant categorization AWB scripts.  The salavageable thing here is that "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual" is total nonsense and has to go. It's signifcant from the perspective of most individual subjects, and (the important part) from the perspect of our readers. Our category system exists for them, not for itself and not for pleasing subjects of bio articles. Propose replacing that without replacing it with equal-but-oppose nonsens, and without tacking on a rider to have fiddly, unworkable changes to inclusion criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification about the DEFAULTSORT/sort key for the Icelandic names
In Talk:Pétur_Marteinsson, we are discussing the interpretation of Categorization_of_people for the Icelandic names. Is someone able to clarify this part of the guideline? In particular: the sentence "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order while an Icelandic category's sort value is as the name is written." could perhaps be rephrased to be more clear? --NicoScribe (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps an obsolescent idea, but an "Icelandic category" is supposed to be something exclusively consisting of Icelanders with Icelandic style names (-dottir etc). This could be sorted differently from say Category:Oboe players while retaining consistency with the Icelandic telephone book.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Thank you very much. What about a reformulation of the mentioned sentence ? I don't want to do it myself, because I hold one interpretation of the guideline in the mentioned talk, and because I am not a native speaker of English. Whatever the reformulation, I will be happy about it, because the mentioned talk has begun on 4 January 2016 and I would like to move on... --NicoScribe (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order apart from categories exclusively populated by Icelandic style names where it is as the name is written." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Yes, I think that your sentence is better than the sentence in the guideline. But two things are bothering me. I think the word "style" is unnecessary (because the sentence belongs to a chapter dedicated to Icelandic names). And I think that the words "it is" should be "the sort key is" (because your sentence could be understood as "the DEFAULTSORT value is X for some categories and Y for other categories", whereas the DEFAULTSORT value is unique in an article (and can be overridden category by category)). --NicoScribe (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...but an "Icelandic category" is supposed to be something exclusively consisting of Icelanders with Icelandic style names... This is slightly incorrect.  Need to remove "exclusively".  There is a small percentage of the Icelandic population that have western style names.  There are also foreigners that will be put in Icelandic categories... Icelandic football for example.  Bgwhite (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there is a small discrepancy in all that: the reasoning in the guideline is based on the names, whereas the categories are usually based on nationalities. But, in the end, I think it is not a problem.
 * For me, an "Icelandic category" is used to list (exclusively) Icelanders, regardless of the type of their last name (patronymic or matronymic or family or western style name). I don't understand: how foreigners could be put in Icelandic categories? Even if the categories that you are mentioning are correctly populated with some foreigners, Icelandic category's sort value is as the name is written so these foreigners will appear in the category as the name is written...
 * But let's get back on track. All the Icelandic people, regardless of the type of their last name, are properly referred to by their first names, I think that it is the reason why Icelandic category's sort value is as the name is written. So, when I combine this remark with my previous remarks, I think that the proposition by Rich Farmbrough should be tweaked like that: "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order apart from categories exclusively populated by Icelanders where the sort key is as the name is written." --NicoScribe (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me. The deeper question is whether we should sort them this way, given our readership, and the complexities of mixed sort orders, I leave to another time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
 * It's not exclusive. There are foreigners on Icelandic football teams and in Icelandic Universities.  People have moved there and became artists, musicians, etc.  These people are in Icelandic categories.  There is no such thing as a category, "exclusively populated by Icelander".  This goes for every country's categories.  It should stay "Icelandic categories". Bgwhite (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry, my words an "Icelandic category" is used to list (exclusively) Icelanders are wrong. Icelandic categories are larger than that. For instance, everyone playing for the Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur football club appears in the Category:Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur players, where the descriptive note confirms that the sort key should be "as the name is written".

I don't want to redefine "Icelandic categories". I don't want to change the meaning of the guideline. I only want to clarify one sentence, so that the mentioned talk can be "closed".

So, a new proposal could be: "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order apart from Icelandic categories where the sort key is as the name is written."

do you agree with this proposal? --NicoScribe (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order, overridden for Icelandic categories where the sort key is as the name is written." would be better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC).


 * I agree. Thanks! --NicoScribe (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * do you agree with the last proposal by Rich Farmbrough? --NicoScribe (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the proposal has been adjusted due to your remark. Do you agree with the last proposal by Rich Farmbrough? --NicoScribe (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * imho "is ... overridden" is a bad word choice here: it seems to imply the MediaWiki software overrides automatically, while the intention is to say that editors should implement a differently structured sort key manually for Icelandic categories. Further, what makes a category "Icelandic" is left unexplained, bolstering up the idea, for the unsuspecting editor, that the system will take care of it without the editor needing to worry ("is ... overridden for Icelandic categories"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should write "manually overridden". But I think that we don't need a clarification about the Icelandic categories. You have certainly seen in this talk that I made a misinterpretation about Icelandic categories but, in the end, I think that everything is explained in the section Categorization schemes which is just above the section Ordering names in a category: an Icelandic category is associated with an Icelandic organization / association / institution / company / team, or with Icelanders (by occupation), or with an Icelandic place. --NicoScribe (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, do you agree with the addition of the word "manually"? The new sentence would be: "However, on English Wikipedia, the DEFAULTSORT value is Western order, manually overridden for Icelandic categories, where the sort key is as the name is written." --NicoScribe (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to the above, as reflecting the intention of the original better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Adding manually isn't a good idea. There are bots that could do some of this work.  Having a bot update some of the more common Icelandic categories would be a good idea to do.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion of Mac and Mc sorting debate?
Sorry, I see this has been argued a lot, and I don't mean to stir things up again for nothing, but I can't find any discussion of the subject from the last few years. On the project page here it says to sort them as they're spelled, as if that were the consensus, but I can't find a discussion where a consensus was reached. I was looking into the topic because I came across a page with an Mc name sorted as a Mac. This was the case for a few others I looked at as well. Should they be corrected? --Languorrises (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a statement somewhere which says MCSTJR was changed in 2010 (from "Mc files as Mac" to "all file as spelled"), and it looks from discussions as if AWB was slow to catch up with the change - here are a few links to discussion:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people/Archive_4
 * Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive 5 (whole page)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people/Archive_7
 * Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive_23
 * Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive_24
 * User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6
 * But I'm not sure that any of that actually amounts to a concluded discussion about the change! Pam  D  09:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a definite rule about these names when Mc or Mac names have a capital letter at the beginning of the remainder of the name; e.g. should "John MacLean" sort as "Maclean, John" or not?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorting on English Wikipedia is now case insensitive, a well meaning change that broke a lot of things. MacLean and Maclean would now require special efforts to sort differently: e.g. using "Mac Lean" as the sort key for MacLean.  If we then wanted to sort "Mac Lean" separately we would need to sort it as "Mac  Lean" (two spaces - or similar). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC).


 * That seems reasonable; I am sure that Mc/Mac names in English should not have an inserted space. Only Mac names in Irish or Scottish Gaelic are customarily written with Mac as a separate word.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a confusion that has lead to "more and bloodier wars" (to paraphrase Douglas Adams) than most things on Wikipedia. Changing the  or individual sort order does not "change the spelling".
 * Thus in the example I gave above we would have in the category:
 * Mac Lean, Fred
 * MacLean, Zachary
 * Maclean, Albert
 * all spelled exactly as their respective article names.
 * With the current method:
 * Mac Lean, Fred
 * Maclean, Albert
 * MacLean, Zachary
 * again all spelled exactly as their respective article names, but sorted in a different manner.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC).
 * again all spelled exactly as their respective article names, but sorted in a different manner.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC).
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC).


 * P.S. it's actually lead to relatively few disagreements, but they were completely unnecessary, and I like quoting Douglas Adams. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC).


 * I updated the entire WP:NAMESORT section around 2012. I gave three refs for "sort them as they're spelled", Chicago Manual of Style (Section 18:71), British standard (BS 3700:1988) and ISO 999:1996 standard.  In addition, American Library Association, The MLA Style Manual, The Indexing Companion, The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Authors and Publishers and Society of Indexers all say sort as spelled. British phone books do not follow this as told by other people.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)