Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 11

Awards (again)
From the discussions above at, , and , I hope we can all agree that the existing WP:OC needs clarification. The main issues I see are
 * 1) It says "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category" but does not provide the rationale.
 * 2) It gives only specific examples of exceptions without providing the general principle for any exceptions
 * 3) The specific exceptions are conflicting
 * 4) *It lists Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners, leading one to presume highly restrictive criteria should be applied.
 * 5) *It subsequently lists Category:Award winners and Category:Awards, which is full of lesser examples.

To organize the discussion, I have created an initial set of subthreads below to discuss the various points.—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for OC#AWARD
What is the problem that OC#AWARD is attempting to address?—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. Is there a need or advantage to limit award categories if they pass WP:NOTE? Notable awards would not seem to fall under the general intent of this guideline to avoid categories for "every verifiable fact". If an award passes Wikipedia notability guidelines, that would seem to be a sufficient criteria for a companion category to exist. I suggest revision of the guideline to bring it in line with WP:NOTE. CrazyPaco (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe the problem it attempts to remedy is category clutter. Some people receive a whole lot of awards in their lifetime. We could easily have some articles with 50–60 categories for awards—possibly even more. As an example of the type of thing that could begin to develop, look at the categories on Winston Churchill. These constitute probably not even 10% of the awards Churchill received. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, Good Ol'factory, I think we need to recognize that Churchill is among the extreme, not typical cases. That happens when you fight in four wars, hold multiple cabinet positions including First Lord of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Minister of Defence and Prime Minister, lead the wartime coalition that saves your country from fascism, and write several popular national histories.  If we are going to try to manage the number of categories on Churchill's page, what minor offices, honors and awards would you delete: Privy Councillors?  Croix de Guerre recipients?  Knights of the Garter?  Nobel Prize recipients?  Clearly it's not the typical biography, and probably a bad example upon which to base an otherwise ambiguous policy regarding the categorization of awards.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory points out a real problem with some bios of very accomplished people having too many categories. Dirtlawyer1 appears to be implying that while a category might be overkill for a few articles, it might be quite relevant and defining for the majority of award winners. I believe  is the attempt to account for both sides.  It proposes that some categories might not be suitable for adding to some pages due to category clutter, but it does not propose disallowing the existence of the category altogether. As that RFC seems to have no clear consensus, it seems inconsistent that we have a different and more severe treatment (deletion) specifically for award winners.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's an extreme—that's why I selected it. But it nicely illustrates the point. Churchill is not alone, of course. Many people receive many awards throughout their lives. Do you know how many honorary academic degrees Bill Clinton has? Are we going to have a category for each one? Anyway, I agree with Bagumba that ultimately, it all comes down to what is defining for the individual. This is the core principle underlying all categorization. Ironically, though, the more one person accomplishes in his or her life and the more awards he or she receives, the less defining each individual award becomes for that individual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so there is some understanding that not having all award categories on a page has might have merit. Should we piggyback that issue with the aforementioned DEFINING RFC?  Putting the page issue aside, is there a reason to delete an award category for an award that meets WP:NOTE, or a pressing reason to mandate that a award list be created instead of an award category?—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is whether or not the award is notable. The issue is—is the award a defining characteristic of the individuals who have received the award? My understanding of why the guideline was written as it is was because in CFDs, only very rarely did award categories survive this test. The usual solution was to create a list rather than have a category. This happened dozens—maybe even hundreds—of times at CFD, by consensus. The fact that many award categories exist is irrelevant, IMO, because the vast majority have not been tested at CFD. Anyone can create an award category and it will continue to exist unless it is nominated and subsequently deleted by consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Understand, my intention is not to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but neither do I want to blindly fall back on CfDs without understanding the rationale that was used in those outcomes. I am trying to understand why awards categories cannot co-exist with awards lists. The Churchill example is a article-specific issue. I am now trying to understand why a list is preferred over a category.—Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... the question of what is (and perhaps more importantly what is not'') a "Defining Characteristic" once again raises its head. We have yet to come up with a clear answer to this question, and until we do it will continue to be contentious. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not being that well versed with categories, my understanding is that one could traverse categories by either finding related categories in a current article, or browsing through portals such as Portal:Contents/Portals. While I can see the problem with too many categories on some articles, are we limiting portals adversely by limiting award categories to defining ones?  Diffusing categories should address the problem of "too many" categories as far as portals and category tress are concerned.—Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we should treat categories for awards any differently than we treat other categories that apply to bio articles. From my experiences, awards categories are not treated any stricter nor any looser than other categories as far as the "defining" standard goes. It just so happens that most awards are not defining for the recipients. Some certainly are, and those categories do exist. But we do have more in existence than have been tested under the standard, because the WP system errs on the side of something existing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To make that clear, should AWARD be moved as a subsection of DEFINING, or is there even a specific need for AWARD? Based on your explanation, an award not at the highest level can still be defining if there is minimal overlap with members of the higher award. I'm not sure that distinction is currently clear as worded.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As it stands, pretty much any of the other sections on the page could be regarded as "subsections" of DEFINING, since that is the overarching rule. The rest are basically elaborations on the general rule. So no, I don't think it would need to be moved. But I think having the section is useful to have as a heads-up because so many of these categories have been deleted in the past. It's quite rare for one that is nominated to survive CFD. The reason the elaborations exist is because DEFINING is somewhat abstract and slippery—the other sections put some meat on the principle and demonstrate how it has typically been applied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to try to keep the different topics as organized as possible. The key issues I see from above are: Feel free to clarify as needed. We can then use the summarized points to cap the above and start new threads as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Some articles have too many categories which cause clutter on the article. This is being discussed already at.
 * 2) Some categories seem suitable for inclusion on a majority of its articles, but they may cause clutter on a small number of articles
 * 3) Categories can be browsed from articles as well as from portals
 * 4) AWARD descends from DEFINING.
 * I would add 5 - some categories are defining characteristics for some people/topics, but not defining characteristics for other people/topics.  This causes arguments... the existence of the category is not overcategorization, but placing a specific article within the category can be overcategorizaton. Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with more items, but do No. 1 and 2 already cover that point, or can they be tweaked?—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I suppose No 5 was my way of combining 1 and 2 and tweaking them. However, my comment isn't just about the cat being "clutter". I am focusing more on "appropriateness".  Is it actually appropriate to add the cat to an article to a cat if the characteristic is non-defining - in the context of that specific article's subject/topic? Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability vs. definingness

 * I see no problem with having many categories if they are notable. I disagree with the assertion that the Churchill article...covering one of history's most accomplished and noted individuals... is plagued with over-categorization. If the categorization is appropriate, and it largely is, an arbitrary number of categories (and arbitrary opinion of what constitutes clutter) should not be not a limiting factor. Perhaps what is needed is better organization of categories, such as the ability to organize large numbers of categories on one article into groupings. The appropriateness of categories should not be defined by relevance to one member article out of possibly 100s, but the topic category itself, and thus the notability and worthiness of the category itself. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is the standard for articles, not categories. Are you saying that every notable award could or should have a corresponding category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Crazypaco is addressing the uncertainty over the rationale for WP:DEFINING, namely this part: "Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic." While this is probably the way it's been done, and there is likely a viable reason, it is unclear the problem that spurred the distinction between notability for articles and definingness for categories.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Defining, as you note, is used for determining if a category should be created, not whether a category should be added to an article. As is, DEFINING needs to be wholly rewritten or thrown out if it is being used to eliminate categories from articles because of someone's opinion of what constitutes "category clutter". CrazyPaco (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. That seems to branch us off into a somewhat separate (or at least more overarching) issue of discussing WP:DEFINING. It's true the issues are interconnected, since as I mentioned above I think AWARDS is just really a "subtype" of DEFINING. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When there is uncertainty around DEFINING and transitively AWARD, I am disturbed by the weight AWARD can be given at CfD's during closing.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that in practice there is much uncertainty about them. Pretty much it always comes down to a case-by-case analysis, not a simple recitation of a guideline. I don't think anyone simply citing AWARD or citing DEFINING is ever that convincing. The user generally needs to describe why in the particular case an award is not defining for the recipients. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This CfD did now allow a category for a HOF at the collegiate level of basketball, weighing in favor of AWARD and the "rule" inferred by its examples of Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners that only the most presitious HOF for all of basketball should merita category.  Certainly some of the top collegiate players become top professionals, but for many the college HOF will be the defining highlight of their career.—Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty weird close to me, given the discussion. And yes, I can see that some users there are taking an extreme view that there should be no award categories. I would take this close to WP:DRV if you are concerned about it. Had I closed it, it probably would have been "no consensus". I agree that if AWARD is used by a closer in this way, something is out of whack. But I haven't before seen it used this way by a closer, so I'm not sure that it's yet a widespread problem. Clearly has potential, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DRV possibility was discussed. Frankly, I am more concerned over the general rationale behind AWARD than in the outcome over a single CfD.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another editor has opened a DRV at Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_5.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: The DRV overturned the CFD closure, allowing the Hall of Fame inductee category in this case despite the original decision to delete based on AWARD.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for rewording OC#AWARD
Note: Branched from thread above.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose to make AWARD less ambiguous and misleading by rewording as "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic ", and removing the ambiguous examples listed in "Exceptions include Category:Nobel laureates ..." Any issues with DEFINING can be taken up in a more general discussion that affects this whole page.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. At least it would bring a bit more clarity as to how things (usually) operate in practice, the one CFD notwithstanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad half-step... but it is only a half-step ... we still have to answer the inevitable follow up question: How does one determine whether receiving the award is (or is not) a defining characteristic? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The removing of the examples was to avoid any undue interpretation i.e. only the highest award in a given field warranted a category. With the proposed change, AWARD would at least be back in line with the general principles of DEFINING.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Bagumba pointed me to this discussion I'll go ahead & add my 2c here & there. I agree with the above commenters that it would be great to remove the ambiguous examples, as suggested above, and we do still need more discussion of how to describe "DEFINING". --Lquilter (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the changes I proposed. Discussion on defining can continue, but this is probably as much a WP:DEFINING issue as it is with AWARD.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DexDor had previously proposed removing the "See also" for Category:Award winners since it leads to confusion. Are people still interested in doing that?  I would support.  --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This was part of my proposal to remove "ambiguous examples listed in ..."—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry I missed your role in that too. Well done!  --Lquilter (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

General principle for allowing exceptions for award categories
Assuming there is agreement on the, what is the guiding principle on what exceptions should be allowed?—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see the guiding principle as being WP:DEFINING—we should only have categories on bio articles for characteristics that are defining for the individual. Awards rarely meet this standard, which is probably why the guideline is worded how it is worded. However, some awards are defining for the recipients, such as Nobel Prizes. If the award is defining for its recipients, then that is an exception. But really, it's just an application of the overarching general rule for all categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see the defining principle as being WP:NOTABILITY first. Category existence should be determined via the long held and vetted Wikipedia concept of notability. The existence of categories, such as awards and honors, cannot be determined simply by whether it is a defining characteristic for each one of possibly 100s of member articles. Each particular member article for almost any category varies widely in how much any particular category is a "defining" concept for that particular member article, but alternatively, the notability of the category itself is constant and therefore a much better standard for the existence of a category. You also cannot exclude a category being placed on an article based on the number of "more" appropriate categories already in place, as that destroys the purpose of categories by preventing completeness of category membership (following in the general concept of TPA but for categories) solely for arbitrary quotas attached to a non-defined opinions of "clutter". If this is not true, one article (out of potentially 100s), which is appropriate to be a member of a category, but for which the category isn't as much as a "defining" characteristic (as determined by least by some editors) for the member article, has the potential to abbreviate or abrogate a notable category. It is not in Wikipedia's best interest to weaken or lose navigation within notable categories for the purpose of cleaning up a lose concept such as "category clutter", particularly on select few member articles of that category.  WP:NOTE for categories seems to have the potential as a much more consistent and evenly applied standard. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow all the above (e.g. what's "TPA"?). Are you in favour of placing an article in an award recipients category even if that article makes no mention of the award (e.g. Eiffel tower in Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks) ? If yes, how do you equate that with WP:DEFINING ? For an example of how silly awards recipients categories can get see the CFD which removed an awards recipients category from articles like blanket. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am 100% absolutely for that. You are defining HIstoric Civil Engineering Landmarks as a "silly award", which is WP:POV on a topic that has passed WP:NOTE. It is more important to have a category fully populated with articles that belong to it than this vague notion of "Defining" which is for determining the appropriateness of category creation, not addition to articles, and seems to be haphazardly and inconsistently applied, and thus can destroys topic navigation by categories (see WP:CLNT). "Defining", as is being applied to whether existing categories should be added to articles, should be thrown out. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Crazypaco's comment is difficult to square with past CFD results, and the guidelines as they currently stand. It looks to me like the user is in favor of a massive shift, but I haven't seen much consensus for such an approach, at least in CFD discussions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: We seem to be talking past one another by discussing two different issues at the same time... Some are discussing issue 1 - whether category X should exist. Others are discussing issue 2 - whether specific person Y should be placed within category X.   Both issues involve the concept of "defining characteristic", but each does so in a different way.  I think it would be helpful to hold separate (more focused) discussions on each issue. Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was originally intending for this to be a placeholder to roadmap a possible discussion for exceptions after there was consensus for the rationale for AWARD (above) i.e. let's agree on the problem before discussing the solution.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My 2c: Notability is a lower standard than defining. A category ought to be supportable by a head article, which means that notability is definitely required.  But in order to address problems of (a) category clutter at the bottom of pages which make the category clump hard to use on individual pages, and (b) policing inclusion/exclusion of categories, category creation needs a higher standard; hence "defining".  Which needs to be better defined. --Lquilter (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Two separate issues
As I said above, we seem to be debating two separate issues (and thus talking past each other, not with each other)... so I thought It would be helpful to start separate discussions on each.

Is the existence of the category over-categorization?
Here, the question is whether Category:Award X recipients should be created in the first place (and, if created, deleted). This is the question that we are asking at CFD. The guideline says that this is determined by whether receiving Award X is a "defining characteristic". Setting aside the larger question of what we mean by "defining characteristic"... We all agree that some awards are almost always considered "defining"... and we can agree that other awards are almost never considered "defining". The problem and arguments arise when we get to the the grey area... awards that are considered "defining" when we talk about one group of recipients, but not considered "defining" at all when we talk about another group of recipients. So, is it over-categorization for the category to exist? My personal answer is: It depends... it depends on how many people the award is considered "defining" for. If if the award is only defining for a very limited group of people, then I would say it is over-categorization for the cat to exist. On the other hand, if the award is "defining" for more than a very limited group, then it is not over-categorization for the cat to exist. Personally, I am an inclusionist on this question... For Wikipedia to have a category on recipients of an award, the award does not have to be "defining" for everyone who received it; it simply needs to be "defining" for enough people. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some doubts about WP:DEFINING, but as long as it exists, WP:AWARDS shouldn't be more restrictive than DEFINING. I agree that if it is defining for most winners, it should be created.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I go further than that... if it is defining for a sizable minority of winners, it should be created. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would lead us to a bad place. Some folks will be notable only for winning a notable prize.  For instance, some early career awards are premised on "promise" more than "performance"; someone might win the prize but then peter out without having accomplished much.  In fact this would likely apply to many awards, so this exception would swallow the rule.  --Lquilter (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Creation of an awards category should be based on the same thing that creation of any category should be based on: Whether the category is needed to navigate a large number of related articles. Set aside the question of whether the biographies of all the recipients should be included and just look at other types of articles.  In the Nobel Prize section, for example, one could point to articles about all the separate Nobel Prizes; the history of the award; the awards ceremonies (separately notable because it is covered in the press); controversies relating to the peace prize (this should be a separate article since there have been so many); allegations of bias in the literature prize (again worthy of a separate article since there have been many); and so on.  There is press coverage not just of who won it & when & the press releases from the award & the winners.  There is also significant academic writing about the award itself.   In other words, there are a *lot* of words and a *lot* of topics relating to the Nobel Prize.  And people's eligibility for, consideration for, likelihood of getting the Nobel is a constant source of speculation in the top echelons of the Prize.  So any biographical article might reasonably include some information about whether the person received the award or was widely speculated to have deserved it or had it stolen from them or whatever. People and their connections to the Nobel are themselves independently notable -- in addition to them being "introduced as" winners for the rest of their lives.   ... Not many other awards can say all that, but no doubt some can.  ...

Now compare that with many, many other awards currently in the Category:Award winners category, and previously deleted from CFD. For most awards we can barely scrape together enough press coverage about the award itself (as opposed to press releases covering it being won). I'm an inclusionist for awards pages, and I think they're quite helpful, but it's the fact that the vast majority of verifiable, reliable sources about awards are either (a) the award site itself; or (b) press-released based stories about the awards being given. You would be hard-pressed to find articles about, say, most Halls of Fame' nominating & award process that were not just on their website -- doping scandals in sports & people's expulsion from HOFs is pretty much the most. Academic scholarship on most awards is wanting. In other words, we eke out notability on most awards based on fairly thin criteria. It's not the more robust "about the subject" criteria but more the large numbers of "mentions" that come up. So it's going to be hard to write more than one article on an award, unless we start splitting out the lists and counting them.

Now consider whether we should use the biographical entries as members. Compare awards with performances or appearances on shows or memberships in even long-standing and important organizations, like the American Bar Association. Someone might have spent quite a lot of time working on committees with their professional association, given dozens of talks, and contributed significantly through their professional association. The association is notable; their relationship with it is significant & should certainly be discussed in their biography; but we wouldn't consider categorizing by it. Not because it's not important or notable, but because we are minimalist with the categories.

I get, I really do, that awards are an appealing thing to add. They're pretty verifiable -- you're either in or out -- and it seems like what harm does it do to provide another useful navigation.

But it's not useful to just keep adding categories. The category system is not used -- most people don't know it exists -- and if someone does stumble across the categories, they're not going to be able to easily read a large mass of text, all in blue, that is either sorted alphabetically or in no clear fashion or not at all. Forget Obama & Churchill. Consider some scientist who's won a dozen awards. Why not categorize by all of them, plus the journals they've edited for, plus all their associations?

The other problem that is rarely discussed is the problem of policing categories. It's easy to watchlist a page and check for inappropriate adds/deletes. It's practically impossible to watchlist a category & check for inappropriate adds/deletes. It's honestly not even easy to see it if you're very familiar with the members of it: Just try reading through a category contents, and comparing that with a sorted list in an article. You have to go item by item; it's not something that is readily done. So then on a lesser-well-known award, or an award that makes multiple awards every year, it's going to be basically impossible to make sure it's not inappropriately added (or deleted). The Wikipedia category software is crappy. It's not tagging. It's not a useful hierarchical navigation system. It has minimal functionality, and even that minimal functionality will basically completely disappear if it's not highly policed.

--Lquilter (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is applying the category to a specific article over-categorization?
Here, the question is whether to place Biography of Person Y within Category:Award X recipients. This is the question that concerns those who complain about "category cruft" and "clutter". At the moment, The OC guideline does not adequately address this question. It is, however, addressed at WP:Categorization of people... WP:COP#N says to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable". That means that simply establishing that the person received the award is not enough. Sources have to discuss (beyond a passing reference) how receiving the award makes the person notable. Personally, I am more of an exclusionist on this question. My feeling is that to place an article within a category, the article should have at least a small paragraph (supported by solid sources) explaining why the subject won the award and how that makes the person notable. If this is not the case, then applying the cat to that specific article is Over-categorizaton, and the article should be removed from the cat. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This really is part of a broader discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization. The biggest issue I see with not placing a non-defining category in an article, even though the category exists, is that browsing through categories would be incomplete. Not all browsing begins at an overcrowded article page, and those readers will be looking at an incomplete category once they reach it if the cat is removed from a page. WP:CLNT seems clear that categories and list should be able to coexist, and those who prefer browsing though categories shouldn't have the uncertainty on whether a list is more complete than a category.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it is highly likely that for the type of awards I am talking about, Wikipeida won't have an article on every person who won the award (some of them would not be notable). So the list would be incomplete anyway.  Second, I don't think we do make a category "incomplete" when we omit articles that are inappropriate for the category. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify that by "complete", I meant every notable person was included i.e. every person that has their own article. Aside from "completeness", I think the reality is that most people instinctively will add a category to a page if it meets the "is a" test i.e. is a, guideline or no guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * People instinctively do all sorts of things they are not supposed to do. Doesn't make it right.
 * Let me give you an example of what I am talking about... consider Category:Amateur golfers. The category notes that we should not include those who play golf at a "recreational" level... OK, but doesn't  makes the category "incomplete"?  Aren't recreational golfers by definition amateurs?  What if someone instinctively added Barak Obama to this category?  Would you remove him?  Why or why not? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That issue stems from ambiguity over what is or is not an "amateur golfer". As for award winners, it is clear-cut who won or did not win an award. I think WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is applicable here.  "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." I'm sure nobody has metrics to determine if more people than not (or visa versa) are removing categories from pages that are not defining.  Not including an existing property merely because it is not defining doesn't seem intuitive to me. At any rate, I think we should separate this issue from AWARD, as it is a broader discussion with DEFINING.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lack of clear-cutedness is one reason to NOT have a category. But clear-cutedness is not sufficient reason to have a category.  It would be great in a tagging system, but Wikipedia's categories is a different (and inferior) beast altogether. --Lquilter (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should'nt deletion nomination of award categories be halted until this issue is settled?
I know this is offtopic, but thought participants may want to know that while this thoughtful discussion is taking place at least two editors are massively nominating award categories for deletion. Here is only one example: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30, xOttawahitech (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would be me, since I nominated that one. I'm very familiar with that award and it's a great example.  In fact, there are multiple awards named after James Madison, and two of them have similar names & subjects.  Both of them have award-winner categories: Category:James Madison Freedom of Information Award recipients and Category:James Madison Award Recipients.

The Freedom of Information Award is a Bay Area-based award given to, for example, renowned Beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti, two weekly alternate newspapers, media scholar Ben Bagdikian, cyberliberties advocacy group EFF, and District Court Judge Marilyn Patel. These entities & people are all noted for their various relationships to "freedom of information", including advocating for it as an individual or a group, or writing award-winning pieces, etc.

The other award, the ALA Madison Award, is a national award, also given to recognize promoters of access to information. It too includes people (politicians, activists, journalists) and organizations. George Soros, Al Gore, John Podesta, the Government Printing Office all received it. Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, too. Board members & Congressional sponsors of the President JFK Assassination Records Review Board. Also, Ben Bagdikian, who received the other Madison Award, too. Again, these entities and organizations all "received" the award but are not defined "by" it; in fact, many of them are not even "defined" primarily by the advocacy work which this award recognizes -- they were recognized for one aspect of their own work that touched on ALA's interests.

They're both great awards & I will defend both of them in an AFD, even though neither is going to be easy to defend under the typical "notability" standard. But they recognize achievements, rather than confer notability. And as such, while they might be great "tags" if Wikipedia had a tagging system, they're lousy "categories" in Wikipedia's lousy "category" system. --Lquilter (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Notice



Here is another example of a awards category recently nominated for deletion. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING
I have seen some absolute rubbish in so-called WP guidelines but never anything as bad as this. For a start, what is this word "definingness"? Who thought that up, what exactly is it supposed to mean and what possible use is it? Words fail me and I will try to remain WP:CIVIL, but when we have an editor (an extremely dubious editor, incidentally) going into the contentious CfD process and trying to get categories deleted on the basis of bureaucratic, ambiguous, pedantic claptrap like this, based as it is on a word that doesn't exist, then clearly Wikipedia has some serious problems involving people who think making up stupid rules takes precedence over providing useful information and search/navigation facilities for the readers. I suggest that the people involved in this brainless enterprise find something useful to do. Jack | talk page 10:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That attempt at civility didn't do too well, did it? I understand that there can sometimes be issues with editors, and the way that they interpret the guidelines on Wikipedia. Know that the majority of contributors mean well, and are a level-headed group of reasonable people. If you can give more information on the dispute you are referring to (such as a link to its location), I will comment further on the matter. Not knowing the context at this time, however, I cannot determine exactly what needs to be done to resolve this. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in helping resolve this matter. drewmunn talk 12:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this CfD discussion. Jack | talk page 18:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the discussion, these are my thoughts: Lugnuts is a respected editor, and has done good work. He does seem to have made a slightly misguided step here (my opinion), but not through misunderstanding or sticking religiously to guidelines. There are, and have been more in the past, categories that are overly specific, such as limiting membership by year. As a rule of thumb, these such categories are rarely necessary. Using logic, therefore, Lugnuts seems to have concluded they are not necessary. I understand a little of cricket in the UK, and do know therefore how radically it and it athletes have changed. This seems, from a cursory glance, to warrant multiple categories rather than a single one. On whether those categories should remain as they are now, or be amended to be a little more broad, I do not wish to comment; I would personally prefer fewer categories than more, but do not know enough to make an informed enough decision in this case. However, many people have made their opinions known, and all aside the proposer are in favour of preserving the categories in some manner. As such, there is little reason to believe that there is much call for a change. Instead, it would be better to assume good faith, and accept that Lugnuts possibly made an error in good faith also. He seems to have disengaged from the discussion, suggesting he wishes not to debate further, but will let the discussion run its course. I would suggest you do the same for now; opinions have been noted, and the discussion seems well rounded enough. There are parts that are drifting into uncivil and PA territory, which doesn't do anything for the debate. If you disengage, you won't become involved in any character disputes from here on in, and from the looks of the common opinion, your personal view will prevail without any further input on your behalf. The actions taken by Lugnuts were not incorrect, and almost identical suggestions have lead to warranted and required mergers. However, in this case, it seems not to be a suitable course of action. This does not mean the poster's actions were incorrect, just his good faith judgement of the situation. Making statements about his behaviour, the validity of his opinions, or his intentions, will only hinder the discussion as it moves into the next stages of the process. I hope this helps clarify things! drewmunn talk 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all about the CfD discussion in which I have said everything I need to say but my issue here is about WP:DEFINING which is ambiguous nonsense that gives no clear directions and is fundamentally based on a meaningless, non-existent term. Is anyone going to rewrite it so that it makes some sense and provides clear direction around how to interpret and use so-called defining characteristics? If a guideline like that can be the basis of a CfD proposal then the whole process has lost credibility. Jack | talk page 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the ambiguity is to ensure we have a wide enough approach that allows for some individual judgment in cases. We don't have solid "rules" as editors, so Wikipedia's guidelines try to describe the general idea behind the logic of it, rather than a black and white ruling. drewmunn talk 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee Jack I'm not seeing a huge problem here, because in the example you point to (here) a person (Lugnuts) applied WP:DEFINING in a way that you feel was pedantic or whatever, and most every one else agreed with you and so he failed to win the point. Isn't that kind of the way it's supposed to work? Your view won the day so why are you unhappy? Sincerely, Puzzled. Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sonic and Hero. WP:DEFINING exists via WP:CONSENSUS. I'm applying that consensus to something that I feel is not defining. Obviously, Jack can't grasp that. I don't like cricket. I love it. I understand the importance of those years to the game, but not the players. Hence the nomination. It's not rocket science.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By Location
The guidelines on this, as always, are a bit ambiguous and can seem to conflict. Look at these two statements from Overcategorization: So, how do we distinguish instances when location categorization has no "relevant bearing" and when it is useful? How large must large be? 100? 200? 1,000? Liz  Read! Talk! 22:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Con: In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics.
 * Pro: However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories.


 * I think that was written to reflect the various consensus decisions that have been made at CFD. (That's usually how these guidelines come to be—rather than being written and then followed, they are written in an attempt to generalize trends in the years of the case-by-case decisions that have been made by consensus. So the consensus creates the guidelines rather than vice versa.) Some decisions have said it's bad to use geographical boundaries to split up subjects when the boundary has no relevant bearing. But then other times, even though the boundaries have had no relevant bearing, there have been consensuses where users have decided that it's OK merely because of the size of the category that would otherwise exist. Because the various decisions have all been case-by-case, there is no explicit agreement on "how large" it must be to justify splitting it. The ones I have seen and can recall have been in the multiple 100s (at minimum) to the multiple 1000s. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Categories: The wild west of Wikipeidia, the Last Frontier:-) XOttawahitech (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech, I actually did a lot of work in CfD in August and September but found myself in conflict with another Editor. I think I had some good arguments but it was really wearing, for an introvert like myself. Some people get energized by drama and conflict but I find it tiring, especially if you keep going over the same points over and over again. Liz  Read! Talk! 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , I think I know how you feel. I try to avoid wp:CFD like the plague. I only venture there when I feel I have no other choice, but often I have this nagging feeling that my mere participation is like a red rag to a bull. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunate, Ottawahitech, because the problem with CfD is that there are only about a dozen regular Editors weighing in. Decisions of what to keep or delete can be a matter of 3 or 4 votes. There needs to be more participation there by Editors who not only know the guidelines of categories but also know something about the category subjects themselves. Liz  Read! Talk! 02:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is most unfortunate that there is not enough quality discussion going on at CfD. I know it has cost me (and those few who rely on categories at Wikipedia) dozens of hours in lost productivity. Thankfully  there are a few very prolific wiki-categorians who manage to ignore all the CfD-talk and just keep on plowing quietly providing the rest of us with an excellent root/category network.


 * I myself have decided long ago that participating in any kind of wiki-deletion-discussion is something that requires expertise and a full-time commitment, and I am glad that there are a few wikipedians who devote their efforts to saving good articles at wp:AfD. It is too bad there aren’t any who provide a similar service at CfD (or for that matter at wp:PROD or wp:CSD). At CfD I see many one-timers who have hardly done any category work themselves do a lot of  nominations and delete voting, but I feel helplessly outvoted trying to do anything about it. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered a discussion on this very same topic (I think?) at User_talk:Obiwankenobi - looks like some editors are bypassing discussion on this page and instead co-ordinating strategies on their own talkpages and away from the community's scrutiny? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * what kind of bullsh*t accusation is that? Seriously? JPL asked me a question, and I answered - if such conversations were somehow forbidden we'd have to delete most talk pages. Please strike your ridiculous conspiracy theory.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Metacategories as subcategories of other metacategories
Why do Category:Categories by parameter and its descendents exist? The entire tree is organized by properties of categories, not properties of articles. It effectively combines all the worst traits of uselessness and triviality addressed by the existing overcategorization rules by not being based on any aspects of article content at all! &mdash;Coder Dan (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
Why not add a section for redundant categories?

Examples:

Category:Urban legends in video games mostly contained irrelevant examples and was redundant to Category:Urban legends in fiction. Category:Wars France lost was redundant to Category:Wars involving France. It would be an implausible redirect, and, as the nom pointed out, it could cause trouble.

This is not my last name (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

IEG proposal on the category system in the English Wikipedia
I have submitted a proposal for an Individual Engagement Grant for the first phase of a project looking at the category systems in Wikimedia wikis. In this first phase I will research the nature of the English Wikipedia's category system, as the first step in designing ways to optimize category systems throughout WMF wikis. In later phases, I plan to


 * Research how readers and editors utilize the category system in the English Wikipedia.


 * Investigate the category systems in other language Wikipedias and in other WMF projects.


 * Explore the value and feasibility of using Wikidata as the basis for the category system across WMF wikis. If deemed appropriate by the community, work with the community to develop and implement this.


 * Utilize user-centered design methodologies to prototype various enhancements to the category system to improve the user experience. If deemed appropriate by the community, work with the community to develop and implement such enhancements.

If you would like to endorse this proposal, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

adjunct and visiting faculty positions
Hi all -- I'd love to generate some consensus here for the adjunct and visiting professor positions NOT being sufficient (ordinarily) to merit a "faculty" category. Those positions certainly may be important to the individuals' careers and thus need to be mentioned in the articles about them. But they are not per se "defining" of that person. Many (most?) adjuncts in various professional fields (law, librarianship, to name two I'm familiar with), for instance, have a day job, and teach one class every semester or less. Someone might adjunct at numerous institutions. Visiting professor positions are usually 2 years at most, and don't indicate a long-term association with a particular institution. In short, none of the reasons we might consider a permanent or tenure-track position at an institution to be "defining" apply with adjunct and visiting positions. Other thoughts? (Example: I just deleted some categories from Nicole Wong; the three categories were for "faculty at ..." various law schools. Ms. Wong was adjunct faculty at the law schools, not permanent faculty.)  --Lquilter (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Some scholars visit or work with multiple universities during their careers, but I agree it's only if they have a long-term association with a particular institution that they should be added to the faculty list. of course there may be exceptions, but I think I agree with the general idea.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there can be exceptions. Hopefully if we can state the general principle and include a little bit of waffling language ("as a general rule" or "ordinarily" etc) to note that there may be exceptional cases in which a faculty relationship with a university (even though adjunct/visiting) might be defining and not overcategorization. ... What would folks think about including this within "non-defining"?  It's adding an example to that category, which might be helpful generally.   --Lquilter (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Anybody else care to weigh in? for or against? --Lquilter (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree generally with what has been said above, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)