Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 13

Eponymous categories - Reconsidering the guideline WP:OC
The basic logic of this guideline is that, beecause there are links in the related articles within a biography article, that navigation to these articles through a category would be redundant. That standard is selectively applied to biographical categories and not any others and I'm not convinced that biography articles are more or less likely to be well linked than a company one or any other. In practice, I think the discussion of these categories devolve into Idontlikeit where popular culture eponymous categories are frowned upon but the eponymous categories for more respectable historical figures are not nominated for deletion.

Based on how often these come up, I was wondering aloud if this guideline still had consensus. Do other people have misgivings about this guideline or am off on my own here?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been in included in Wikipedia Categorization of people and WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I could see some restrictions on living people (similar to WP:BLP be put into the Category space to avoid libel issues. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * On first impression I'd say WP:OC is still pertinent. Maybe it would help if some links were provided to such eponymous categories which are thought of as useful, but yet deleted for this reason (link to CfD discussions then), or to useful cats that wouldn't stand if WP:OC#EPONYMOUS were applied strictly, or to cats (like on companies or organizations) that wouldn't fall under WP:OC#EPONYMOUS strictly speaking but have comparable problems. Tx.
 * On the other hand I don't see the BLP connection. Category:Barack Obama makes sense imho. Category:Michelle Obama doesn't. Similar, Category:Mel Gibson. That's not a BLP issue. Also WP:BLPCAT (part of the BLP policy) has "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (...etc)" which already covers this. If there is a problem here I don't see, please provide examples too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is yet another guideline that gives no reason why the guideline is there in the first place. We really need to stop doing this. The underlying reasons appear to be:
 * (a) Eponymous categories should only exist where the person/group is the subject of significant scholarship in their own right, and that scholarship is well represented in Wikipedia content
 * (b) Lists of works by a group or person should not be the basis for an eponymous category and should always be in categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie
 * (c) Content in which the person/group is neither the primary topic nor a highly defining aspect of the content should not be within an eponymous category.
 * (As a result...) These three requirements for an eponymous category mean very few people can potentially have one.
 * The guideline should be rewritten to include the above points. We should remove the irrelevant discussions of article links, summary style and the confusing examples of Shakespeare and Tolkein (which suggests we should use "scholarship on X" instead of eponymous cats, but then says, without reason, "and we have eponymous cats on those too!". SFB 09:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Sillyfolkboy's guidelines are lot more understandable and wouldn't radically impact what we categories we include. I especially like C) because many fans seem to dump in any category which references a celebrity. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Afaics the underlying reasons are in the lede of the guideline:
 * Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter".
 * To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided. Based on existing guidelines and previous precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such categories, if created, are likely to be deleted.
 * I would take a "don't fix what isn't broken" attitude to this. So unless CfD discussions are made particularily difficult because of the vagueness in this guidance I see no reason for a fundamental rewrite. That there are two considerations, both valid, that go in different directions is in itself not a problem imho. Maybe examples could be a bit updated, that's all I see for improvements to this section of the guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you don't think there a problem with having a guideline that does not explain why that guideline is needed? SFB 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ? I said the why is explained in the lead paragraphs, and copied these to this talk page. WP:CfD troubles is part of that why (end of second paragraph), but no changes in that part of the why have been demonstrated thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I might mean something different by "explained". "The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories). If these links are not present, then the links should be added before proposing such a category for deletion" does provide an explanation. But it's a circular explanation: eponymous articles don't need categories because all the articles are linked in the article so a category is redundant; if they aren't all in the article, add them so that a category will be redundant.
 * But we have multiple forms of navigation everywhere: links in articles, categories, templates.  Why is this higher standard being applied only on categories where the lead article would be a biography?  (I guessed there might be an unspoken BLP concern but that appears not to be the case.)  I'm not being rhetorical to make a point here, I really want to know: Why are overlapping forms of navigation bad for biography articles but cool for everything else? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories). If these links are not present, then the links should be added before proposing such a category for deletion"


 * I read that as a procedure, not an explanation. It is certainly no answer to the question why. It just says: *if* the eponymous category has to be deleted *then* first *proceed* with inserting all the links in the corresponding article then *afterwards* go with the cat to CfD.
 * BTW I see no answer to the why question in SFB's (a)-(b)-(c)-(As a result...) steps above either.
 * So again, the lede gives the why, the WP:OC#EPONYMOUS section gives the procedure for this set of categories. Unless examples (like CfD discussions gone besirk or categories protected by this against common sense or categories deleted by this against common sense) can be given I fail to see a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't explain why a personal eponymous category is specifically more of a bad idea than a non-eponymous one. That is what this section needs to explain. As it stands, it is just assumed that the reasons for this difference are obvious. In comparison, the section on "People associated with" clearly delineates the reason for previous consensus on the issue. The summarised point in the lead, "overcategorisation causes distracting clutter", isn't explanation enough. If explanation for the sub-sections isn't required then we could just reduce this guideline to the lead and a twenty-point list of the given bad ideas. SFB 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These guidelines are meant to reflect the consensus from the history of CFD discussions. The idea is that originally, the discussions dictated the content of the guidelines and not vice versa. So if we want to isolate some reasons for the guideline, we need to go back and examine the reasons provided in the discussions that led to the guideline being formed. There have been probably hundreds of discussions about this type of category, so there is a lot to look at. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Good Ol'factory. This guideline probably had consensus because, before it was in place, there must have been problems with eponymous categories. If we open this gate, maybe the barbarians may storm back in. Since I raised the issue, let me look in the histories and see if I can find some background.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4: Category:George Gershwin
 * The Concern Francis Schonken, I didn't really answer your question about what is broken. I don't think this guideline causes problem at the Categories for Discussion level; indeed these are normally dispensed with in speedy nominations and those with full conversations rarely survive. My concern is that this guideline is removing categories that are constructive and harms the quality of Wikipedia. (It certainly also removes a lot bad categorization, but those could normally be removed on other grounds, usually WP:OC). The guideline also seems very selectively applied to pop culture categories while more "serious" people can have categories. (I know that comes close to WP:OtherStuffExists but it is so systematic that I think this just serves as a vehicle for IDontLikeIt.) I work primarily in the category space and I don't understand why this guideline is trying to accomplish, how to interpret when to apply it, and the examples are baffling to me. I don't even like the name because I think it has turned into jargon for a reason-less reason. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. My concern is that this guideline is removing categories that are constructive and harms the quality of Wikipedia... (etc): Again, examples *please*. I really can't say anything sensible about this without examples. If this is only *theoretically* about pop culture cats, without a single example (existing or deleted), the discussion is moot before it started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fair. This is taking a little longer than I thought because Google Advanced doesn't seem to include CFD discussion, but I'll provide some. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:John Wayne was deleted becasue it was correctly identified as violating the guideline. However, it is is viable: John Wayne, John Wayne filmography, Batjac Productions, USS YMS-328, John Wayne Is Big Leggy, Category:Works by John Wayne
 * Category:Audrey Hepburn was deleted based on consensus, recreated without consensus, renominated but that nomination was inconclusive between people who thought the category worked and those who thought it violated the guideline (it does).
 * Category:George Gershwin is a viable cat that does not comply with the guideline, as reflected in the muddled nomination
 * Category:Nicole Kidman is under current nomation. Again, that discussion is torn between those who want to enforce the guideline versus those looking at the population of the cat RevelationDirect (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seven years ago, maybe time to re-evaluate. I suppose that in the mean while there are a number of new articles directly relating to Wayne that would make this eponymous category viable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * problems can (easily) be solved:
 * expunge comet, theatre and prize from the main category. Add comet to Gershwin (disambiguation) — theatre and prize are there already.
 * I suppose Robert Russell Bennett and Ferde Grofé could be added to the category
 * I'd merge the two "albums" categories in Category:George Gershwin music recordings. Many more recordings have a separate article, e.g. Porgy and Bess (Glyndebourne album) and could be categorized accordingly (seems like Porgy and Bess recordings could fill a subcategory).
 * Add a category Category:George Gershwin in film, can contain e.g. Porgy and Bess (film), Rhapsody in Blue (film), An American in Paris (film), Shall We Dance (1937 film) etc --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ — I hope with some success --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Nicole Kidman
 * Maybe clarify a bit: specific difficulty with Gershwin is that he has one leg in classical music (including opera), with such categorisations as Category:Opera recordings, and another in more popular music genres (generally using the Album epithet for recordings, e.g. Category:Albums by artist usually named rather after the performer than the composer - "tribute albums" as in Category:George and Ira Gershwin tribute albums is a concept not used in the realm of classical music). Other issues: distinguishing recordings of the music as opposed to film recordings; film scores attributed to the ad hoc score composer even if entirely based on Gershwin's music; lyrics mostly but not always by brother Ira; role of orchestrators which is in fact an elaborate separate chapter in Gershwin's music (but not yet very developed in the eponymous article, and rather fractured in other articles); etc...--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, would certainly need work. Maybe it's about a choice too: her filmography, discography and awards have detailed lists (and can give appropriate attention to her songs and film producer work). Categories referring to Kidman could only be added to film articles where she had a lead role or an award winning performance per WP:DEFINING (I suppose - not sure what standards are for film articles), so this would never work nearly as good as the lists. Blossom Films and near relatives / significant life partners would have clear links from the article... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of a reason: keep people categories separate
Categorization of people has (5th bullet): keep people categories separate. I think that is an underlying reason why works of creators are better in a "Works by..." category than in an eponymous category (for categories named after people) — for people the eponymous category would (almost by definition) be part of a people categorization scheme, limiting direct members to biographical articles. So for people the eponymous category would maybe have a few direct relatives and intimates as members (in the case such family members and intimates are notable in their own right to have a separate article), a few spin-offs of the main biography, and a few subcategories (like the "Works by..." subcategory). Mostly that is not enough to warrant a separate category. A way out (if several members of the same family have a separate Wikipedia article) is to have a Family category (which would of course be also a people category).

Some examples to illustrate this:
 * Category:Isaac Newton — the example shows that it remains difficult to separate the biographical content in a clean way, which is a contra-indication against such eponymous people categories. The amount of biographical material and publications by and on the person need to be extensive to warrant the creation of such high maintenance category.
 * Category:Strachey family — less problems to keep non-biographical articles out.

As the same reasoning doesn't apply to (for instance) companies and organizations (except that for example notable board members should best be in a specfic people subcat) this may explain why WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is applied less strictly to such eponymous categories.

I concur that the basis of all this is past CfD experience, as noted by several people above by now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the concern the eponymous guideline addresses is that categories about people are conceptually different so we should have a different approach, I think that's a lot more compelling that the reason that is there now (i.e. being able to link form articles means categories shouldn't be used). RevelationDirect (talk)
 * Again, that is not a *reason* but the current practice on how to get rid of a superfluous eponymous cat. The reason why is in the lede, that by default applies to all specific forms of overcategorization.
 * The WP:COP related reason is in the WP:COP guideline, I don't think we should rehash that reason here, but a link to that part of the WP:COP guideline might be useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my fumbling word use. I'm trying to distinguish between the overall point of the Overcategorization page versus the point of individual sections of the page. Thanks for your patience. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! I think we've reached something we can agree upon – can we (briefly) mention the "people" vs "works by" category trees in this guideline? I notice your reasoning somewhat dovetails with all three points I outlined above. I think our approach is different though. Honestly, if reasons accepted at a CFD contravene a wider guideline, my position is that we should disregard them here (e.g. the point about links in article space having consequences for the category space). SFB 16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eponymous categorization is probably also helpful to link.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I linked this guideline to both of these resources. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Strachey family category fails WP:SHAREDNAME because it just lists people with that last name (who may be related) but it's unclear why they are a meaningful grouping. Isaac Newton seems like a valid category that has had WP:OC inserted; the biography categories other than Newton should be removed. Not counting the person the eponymous category is named after, I think including other biography articles is very rarely useful.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Stracheys in the family cat are really family you know, see Strachey. Non-related Stracheys (see Strachey) are not included in the cat. So actually something can be learnt from the cat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I judged this category too quickly based on the disambiguation-like main article. This grouping is fine although I would rename it Category:Strachey family of Sutton Court, Somerset or Category:Strachey familyRevelationDirect (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "...or Category:Strachey family": the cat is named Category:Strachey family. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I must have stayed up too late last night; you're obviously correct. My concern is solely with the main article (Strachey), not the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a surname article the page name Strachey is OK with WP:NCP (different namespace, different rules apply - also shows the difference between categories and lists) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Eponymous
OK, the Eponymous guideline |was added on March 7, 2007 by a now inactive editor. This occurred in a period when there was rapid change in the guidelines. The discussion that reached consensus for adding it was |based around celebrity categories. Here is the original text:

RevelationDirect (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There were a large number of successful nominations to remove eponymous categories on [|the March 4, 2007 CFD page. [[User:RevelationDirect|RevelationDirect]] (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Finally, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, when you create an eponymous category for someone that category tag can theoretically start appearing on anyone else's article that mentions them." this sounds very similar to the concerns raised by multiple editors above but it doesn't appear in the current guideline. I'm not sure if we have agreement on whether this means you shouldn't create the category at all or just that you shouldn't abuse it though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the first reason "One reason is that if almost every notable person had their own category, it would mean hundreds of thousands or millions of additional categories to maintain."


 * has been moved/merged to the lede as an overall consideration.
 * Here's a category I cleaned up this morning: Category:Virginia Woolf. This one is interesting for the 3rd and final reason "Finally, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, when you create an eponymous category for someone that category tag can theoretically start appearing on anyone else's article that mentions them."


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bleck, this category might better be called "Anyone who once had lunch with Virgia Woolf". This appears to be a "People associated with... category under another name. Again, I don't defend this category but I think we have other guideliness to kill it with. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really the case, the cat contains
 * Her father
 * Her husband
 * Her sister
 * Her two brothers and her two half-brothers
 * Two scholars she definitely never had lunch with
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was being a little flippant. I don't think family members generally belong in a category for an individual person though; I'd rather a Category:Woolf family or Category:Stephen family if it is notable. Lynne Hanley has no reference to Woolf in the current article. Jane Marcus would be a very rare case for me where a second person article belongs in an eponymous category.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh, the more I look at this one, the more interesting it is. It doesn't run afoul of keeping people articles separate, although it does combine Woolf family and Woolf scholars. Other than that, my only grief with it is that I don't think people would click on a category named after a person (with no modifier) and expect to see other people. So this is more a category that should be renamed rather than a conceptual grouping problem. Thanks for providing this example.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another one I just cleaned up: Category:E. M. Forster. This one should be DELETED by the old rules I suppose, and also by the new rules. Any thoughts? Or should I just take this to CfD? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bleck, that category should go. Even if we don't agree on eponymous, WP:Small should shoot that out of the water. I take your larger point though that, if a category is only populated with garbage, the cat itself should go.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the old idea has any relevance seven years on. The concept of defining characteristics is much more developed now and there is explicit consensus that the category system is a navigational supplement to the main space per the lead of WP:Categorization; linking of a topic in an article should not directly affect categorisation – it is not a "See also" system. The content at the main guideline at the time in 2007 shows the original eponymous guideline additions were not in line with the wider consensus at the time either. The proposal of putting a numerical limit on the number of defining characteristics a topic has never achieved broad consensus and should not be included until there is one. SFB 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see Francis Schonken's point that Eponymous categories seem to have unique problems with inappropriate articles being added (and if all the articles are inappropriate, the category can't stand). That to me, is a lot stronger position than the current guideline although I wonder if other guidelines can address that. RevelationDirect (talk)

Proposed Eponymous categories for people

 * See also: Eponymous categorization

These categories work best when the person's main article is split into multiple directly related subarticles which otherwise can not be reasonably categorized. An example would be Jan Smuts which has subarticles such as Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War which are best function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. People who have a large number of related categories may also work as eponymous category such as Category:Ronald Reagan.

Avoid populating eponymous categories with the following:
 * Non-defining: Content in which the person/group is neither the primary topic nor a highly defining aspect of the content.
 * Individual works: by a group or person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in sub-categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie.
 * Biographies of other people. Notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people so these should rarely be included.
 * Family members: These should generally be included in a separate family category if the family is itself notable. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family, not Category:Theodore Roosevelt.
 * Potentially libelous: All categorization should comply with the biographies of living persons policy.

Avoid creating categories that would rely primarily on the above, especially for celebrities.

RevelationDirect (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been in included in the Overcategorization main page to help gain more feedback to gain consensus. (Previously linked to Wikipedia Categorization of people and WikiProject Biography). – RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is obviously a rough draft but it tries to balance the different viewpoints above to reach consensus:
 * Remove outdated concept that internal links preclude categories.
 * Remove the assumption that eponymous categories are bad unless proven otherwise. (Theoretically this loosens the reins a bit.)
 * Identifies the common ways these cats are overpopulated. (In practice, I think this gives a lot more ammo to take out problem cats.)
 * Links to overarching Categorization of People, Eponymous Categorization, and BLP guidelines to provide better context.
 * It does not have many examples yet.
 * What looks good; what is should be changed?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Too long. Should be shorter than what is in the guideline now. Is already one of the longest sections, so not make it longer for something that is mostly evident from other guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm basically relisting the other guidelines and saying "that applies to eponymous categories too." Also, the other guidelines seem more conversational. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortened 2nd Proposal

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

These categories work best when the person's main article is split into multiple directly related subarticles which otherwise can not be reasonably categorized. An example would be Jan Smuts which has subarticles such as Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War which are best function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. People who have a large number of related categories may also work as eponymous category such as Category:Ronald Reagan.

Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in sub-categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Notable people are likely to be associated with or related to a large number of other notable people. Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid overcategorizing an eponymous category in order to justify its existence.

RevelationDirect (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC) -
 * Possible further improvement:

(ec - I see you already solved part of this in your next proposal, I'm going to post it "as is" to avoid further embarassment) The proposal should be clearer that also eponymous categories not named after persons exist (see many examples in Eponymous categorization) and are often less problematic.
 * That first paragraph could be further condensed to "Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." YOu know what, ignore this one, I'm just thinking out load here. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposal should be clearer that eponymous categorization (for cats named after people) is by and large overcategorization. split biographies are all in all a rather exceptional phenomenon. I know exactly 2 3 (Jan Smuts, Isaac Newton and Category:Prem Rawat). So most of these are "with multiple subcats" examples, (and/)or a WP:OC liability.

BTW, what about Category:Barack Obama (this one for example also contains media)? Category:Oprah Winfrey? Category:John Maynard Keynes (all direct members non-biographical)?

Also, regarding the examples you'd propose to use on the guideline page (Category:Ronald Reagan, Category:Theodore Roosevelt) best check whether you'd really want to use these as "good" examples of what the guideline is explaining.

Maybe start with something in this vein:"For every eponymous category a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography), per keep people categories separate. For categories named after persons that is usually a problem... etc" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to avoid stating that Eponymous categories are bad, not because it may not be true, but because it is really harming the conversations in the CfD nominations of the non-ridiculous categories. The nominator says strike this cat because it is eponymous of a person. And the responses are split between those that see that it is eponymous and those that looking at the cat and thinking "this looks OK." Absolutely no one is arguing the bizarre Category:Tolkien studies exception in the current guideline.
 * This is why I assumed this guideline did not represent a consensus but now I'm thinking it might just be half poorly explained and half dated.
 * If nominators now have to say "This eponymous category of a person should go because of X" that should frame the discuss a lot better because responses would more likely say "Is this really X?" or "Can X be fixed?".RevelationDirect (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Even more Succinct 3rd Proposal

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in sub-categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Notable people are likely to be associated with or related to a large number of other notable people. Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people so Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid overcategorizing an eponymous category in order to justify its existence.

RevelationDirect RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

-
 * The issue of fans being over-exuberant and creating celebrity categories without enough content comes up a lot. But I'm wondering if the way I phrased the last sentence assumes bad faith.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

4th Proposal

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

For every eponymous category a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article), per keep people categories separate. For categories named after persons, this can be difficult to create conceptually. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories. Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Oprah Winfrey are some examples that accomplish both. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category and should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.

RevelationDirect (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

- Like it!
 * I think this flows nicely into the next guideline, WP:OC. I can search for some examples in the CfD discussions to add. What else would make this better?RevelationDirect (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's an idea as replacement for the last sentence:"When assessing whether such eponymous category is viable vaguely related articles should be expunged from the category first, keeping only those in that have a (very) direct relation to the subject and cannot be moved to a subcategory."

I replaced "be in subcategories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie" by"be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie" because this shouldn't be read as an invitation to necessarily create a parent category. Hope that's OK with you? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the punctuation parenthetical "(sub)categories". I'm not sure about the last sentence because, even though it's not a formal part of WP:CFD, there is a strong etiquette against purging categories then nominating them for deletion. (I make that faux pas when I start to clean up a category and then realize it can't be salvaged.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Version 3.5

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories. Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some examples that accomplish both. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.


 * SFB, based on your sentence numbering and alternate example, I constructed the proposal above and inserted into the middle of the existing comments. This is meant to represent your viewpoint so, if I got it wrong, go ahead and fix it. (Please note that I used Francis Schonken's rewording of the Agatha Christie sentence.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I missed that you want to add "Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people so Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt." to WP:OC. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll support this, and it's also our briefest proposal yet. I'm not a fan of the "EPO" shortcut though as it's not obviously different from the main "EPON". Maybe "OEPON" for Overcategorisation+Eponymous? SFB 08:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think we need a direct shortcut to more easily find CFD nominations but I'm fine with your suggested link. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can omit parentage detail, be brief and say "in a category such as". I prefer the first two sentences of the 3rd proposal, which rightly combines the "people separate"/"works together" issues. The section title is "Eponymous categories for people" so we don't need to point out about the decision to distinguish non-personal from personal in this section. I would keep 3rd proposal sentences 1+2, and add to them 4th proposal sentences 3+4+6. I also think moving 3rd proposal sentence 4 to the associated people section would be beneficial and keep reasonings together – categorising people as a defining characteristic of another person is something that needs mentioning as a persistent problem and the "associated" section is the place to do that. SFB 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I think Category:Oprah Winfrey is not a good example. It contradicts the "works by" rule and plenty of articles in the child "Harpo Productions" category also appear in the eponymous category. Although it's nice to have an entertainer in there, something like Category:Albert Einstein would be a better example of what these categories should look like. From my perspective, the contents of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American people are an absolute mess. After we've finished this discussion I would like to open another one about setting limits for putting people in other people's eponymous cats. SFB 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your suggestions. You're right that the introduction doesn't need to restate the topic and the category example is better. The shortcut change is fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the big issues with these cats is shoving random other people into someone else's eponymous category. I think part of the solution is to clarify WP:OC so it clarifies that such categories are forbidden when they occur in practice, even when the "name" of the category is fine. But I also think that while "Keep people categories separate" applies to all categories, eponymous ones are uniquely vulnerable to having random associates added to otherwise workable categories. I think proposal 4 may have overemphasized this point, but it should be included. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just noticed keep categories separate is included in the 2nd sentence of your proposal but I'm looking for a little more emphasis.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Version 6

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category but should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Like with all categories a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article), per keep people categories separate. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.

RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Conensus? This is basically version 3.5 from SFB with the Version 4 sentence from Francis Schonken placed in the middle with some rewording from me. Does this work for everyone? Is there anyone else observing this page who would like to hop in? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops
I just noted Categorization of people, which contains this content: Aren't we doubling (part of) that content?

I say oops while I should've known that one, and pointed your attention to that earlier in this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should probably just reference that. I do think this guideline need to be better linked to the related guideline/policies. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look and it's not too surprising that the long guide for how you should categorize people has some overlap on a short guideline on common ways that people should not categorize them.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Version 7

 * See also: Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization, Wikiproject:BLP categorization

Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category but should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Like with all categories a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article) to keep people categories separate. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.

RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this version as ready to use and I'm happy to move on. FYI - I would like the next discussion to address the issues at WP:EPONCAT and WP:EPON around how to categorise the eponymous category. Guidelines are clearly unworkable in practice for the obvious reason that no single parent category will ever work for all child articles in something like Category:George W. Bush or even Category:Mekong River. SFB 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same for me on both points. I found the language of WP:EPONCAT as quoted above, especially its second paragraph, quite foggy when I re-read it this morning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming from very different places and ending in a consensus that vastly improves the guideline. 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts
I noticed when looking for previous CFD discussions, that the |CFD discussions do not show up in Google searches. (I assume these were intentionally excluded to avoid readers inadvertently getting these discussions with their search results.) Also, the "What links here" button doesn't work for section hashtags. For instance, if you go to Overcategorization and click "What links here", there is no way to see just discussions pointing to WP:OC. In contrast, clicking on the "What links here" button for a shortcut like SMALLCAT provides a nice list of prior discussions.

I'd like to create shortcuts for all of the remaining guidelines but a consistent naming convention is difficult. There are already several with existing shortcuts, some guidelines involve inherently bad categorizations and other ones that can be misused, and some obvious choices like WP:PERFORMANCE and WP:EPONCAT are already taken. Here is what I came up with:


 * WP:DEFINING
 * WP:SMALLCAT
 * WP:NARROWCAT
 * WP:OVERLAPCAT
 * WP:ARBITRARYCAT
 * WP:OCMISC
 * WP:OEPON WP:OCEPON
 * WP:OCASSOC
 * WP:SHAREDNAME
 * WP:OCLOCATION
 * WP:TRIVIALCAT
 * WP:SUBJECTIVE
 * WP:OCEGRS
 * WP:OPINIONCAT
 * WP:CANDIDATECAT
 * WP:OCAWARD
 * WP:TOPTEN
 * WP:OCVENUE
 * WP:PERFCAT

Any suggestions on improving these shortcuts? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with any of those. I think this an uncontroversial suggestion you can be bold about. Might be worth changing WP:OEPON to WP:OCEPON if you wish to set a format. SFB 20:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated as uncontroversial. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd change the shortcut for Overcategorization from WP:DEFINING to WP:NON-DEFINING (see for example above, and many more sections). The main reason is however that "defining" is defined in the WP:CAT guideline (shortcut: WP:CATDEF).

I'd make WP:DEFINING a disambig page for: --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CATDEF
 * WP:NON-DEFINING
 * This last one currently rediscussed at Wikipedia talk:DEFINING --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Production personnel by project
Am I right in thinking that categorizing people who have worked behind-the-scenes on a particular project (such as a play, film, or television show) should generally not be categorized by that project? This is closely related to WP:PERFCAT, but it's not about performance. For example, at the moment Albert R. Broccoli is in Category:James Bond, but George Lucas is not in Category:Star Wars. One of those is surely wrong, no?

On a related note, when we say that people should not be categorized by a project they worked on (as, for example, Television producers by series), is that the same as saying that they should not be present in the category for that project? If we disallow, say, a category for producers of James Bond movies, does that mean that Albert R. Broccoli should be removed from Category:James Bond? Or is there a distinction to be drawn between creating a subcategory for people affiliated with a particular production, and categorizing people closely affiliated with said production with that production? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERFCAT and reality shows
There are tons of these categories (see most subcategories at Category:Reality television participants), and as far I gather, they are discouraged by WP:PERFCAT. For example, I noticed someone adding Category:Project Runway (U.S. series) judges to a bunch of articles. I doubt Christina Ricci is defined by being a judge on Project Runway.

What is the consensus on this? Are reality shows exempted from the guidelines? Nymf (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That judges category obviously is including guest judges, so at a minimum should be purged of all but the recurring judges. As for the participant categories, in many cases that may be a subject's primary claim to fame or at least how they first got famous and so will be defining for them. Probably depends on what reality show we're talking about, as some of them just recycle TV personalities or forgotten celebrities rather than being a launching pad. Compare Top Chef with The Surreal Life... I know "case by case" is rarely anyone's favorite answer, but that seems like the best way to judge these. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For this specific case, I would agree to trim this to the regular judges. A singular appearance is not definitive aspect of a person any more than, say, a cameo in a movie. We don't even categorise people within films they've played lead in. The best approach would be to avoid such a categorisation unless that performance was a persistent prominent role (e.g. Gary Barlow in Category:The X Factor (TV series) judges is OK, Ricci in Runway judges is not). SFB 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Definingness" as notability guideline for categories themselves (not their member articles)
I'd like to tag one of WP:CATDEF, WP:DEFINING, WP:NON-DEFINING as a member of Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, any cons? It took me a while to unearth this new "definingness" concept. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the con is they have nothing to do with one another. "Notability" is entirely about whether topics merit standalone articles based on coverage in sources and/or certain qualities or achievements of the topic. "Defining" is entirely about whether a category fact (i.e., what fact are we categorizing) is significant to an article topic (and it's not "new", we've been using that word in this context for several years). postdlf (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Restricting the scope of the common English word "nobability" to articles and inventing a new word "definingness" to apply only for categories is a system invented by WP which a lay person would have difficulty following. Why "definingness" cannot be understood as "notability for categories"? I'm trying to make WP more friendly for inexperienced users -- I'm sure you're familiar with the "oh shit" graph. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...is a system invented by WP..." That's exactly correct. The Wikipedia editing community has settled on these terms and how to use them. We use "notability" as a term of art to mean a particular form of article inclusion criteria (though still strongly tethered to its ordinary meaning), and it would only cause confusion to stretch it beyond how we have used it for well over a decade. "Definingness" is less a term of art and more just a bland descriptive term when raised as a question in the category context: "is this fact defining for article subjects? does it define who or what they are?" postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NON-DEFINING has been used in nominations for deletion of entire categories, very much in the same way that notability guidelines have been used in article deletion nominations -- that's how I made the parallel. But I'll quit insisting. Let the WP system serve its creators. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Is 7 'saint' categories appropriate for this article?
Saint Ninian is in 7 'Saint' categories. Does this make sense? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be specific the categories in question are: Category:Northern Brythonic saints, Category:Romano-British saints, Category:5th-century Christian saints, Category:Medieval Roman Catholic Scottish saints, Category:Anglican saints, Category:English Roman Catholic saints, Category:Scottish Roman Catholic saints. Are you saying that some of these don't apply? Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it seems a lot. And a medieval 5th century saint? Why Northern Brythonic as well as Sxottish? Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a lot if he belongs in all the listed categories. The question isn't the number of categories... but whether this specific saint belongs in all these specific categories. I don't know enough about the subject to answer that. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a common issue with saint articles, it could be a sign that the categorization structure is too granular and leads to category clutter, per WP:NARROWCAT. It looks like this is a one-off issue with a saint that was in Britain when it ceased to be a part of Rome and then was a missionary to another area though.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition to policy
What do you think of this edit? I understand the idea behind it but the language is confusing. I just wanted to hear from other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed it was worded awkwardly but it looks like it was cleaned up since this post. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Uncategorized" (or "Undercategorized") maintenance sub-category
About WP:OCMISC, what are your thoughts on using an "Uncategorized" (or "Undercategorized") maintenance sub-category (hidden) so as to help clean-up articles that often get temporarily dropped in a base category but are not general concepts, rather are actually awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories? Or should such articles just be tagged with Undercategorized instead? Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Uncategorized pages. See also CFD discussions such as this and this. As editors browse the category tree they spot articles that can be moved to a more specific category and move them (example ). DexDor(talk) 05:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm referring to undercategorization, e.g., Category:Undercategorized pages. It would seem somewhat conflated with Category:Stub categories (more specifically, Category:Top-level stub categories), except that it's concerned with the categorization of articles instead of the amount of content in body of articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing to an unintended consequence of WP:OCMISC, which is that the base of any given category holds general articles as well as undercategorized articles; the latter should be checked and probably needs diffusion, the former has been triaged already. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be conflating at least 3 separate things - stubs, undercategorized articles and articles that should be moved to one or more lower categories. Can you explain clearly how you think the existing guideline should be changed? DexDor(talk) 04:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline should allow for sub-categories named "Undercategorized", so as to minimize confusion between general-concept articles that should remain at the base category and other articles that are just waiting further categorization. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand your comment, you're suggesting something like Category:Science (undercategorized)? I think the best argument against that would be that people who are most likely to miscategorize something in a base-level category are those who are unfamiliar with the category structure, and so they would also be least likely to know to use such a maintenance category. And anyone who would be likely to apply such a maintenance category would make better use of their time to simply place the article in an appropriate, specific subcategory. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this hits the nail on the head. It's a specialist category as a solution to a non-specialist problem. SFB 22:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. Your example, Category:Science (undercategorized) -- I was thinking more like Category:Science/undercategorized, member of Category:Science and Category:Undercategorized pages -- shows how awkward it'd be. Hopefully in the future we'll have some sort of "new category membership" patrolling (similar to New pages patrol). Fgnievinski (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found two big related category trees -- would you please weigh in: Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3

BC births and deaths categorizations
A discussion involving the application of WP:DEFINING and WP:SMALLCAT in the context of BC biographies is currently held at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)