Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 15

RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD
Should we add "A typical exception would be where there is an exhaustive set of articles connected by a single, well-defined award, such that a reader is likely to want to browse them as a group"? dawnleelynn(talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Background
WP:OCAWARD currently reads:

To help clarify these "few exceptions", we should consider cases where having a category is preferable to a list. There exist a number of awards where the recipients form a comprehensive set of articles, and where we may expect readers' interest in one of the recipient's article to extend to many other recipients' articles. Categories are designed to aim that sort of navigation from article to article. On the other hand, lists often contain red links as one of their purposes is to enumerate a set of examples of a topic regardless of their individual notabilities.

Examples:
 * The Beatles are in Category:Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winners, Category:Brit Award winners, Category:World Music Awards winners, and Category:Best Original Music Score Academy Award winners. Each of these lists exists as an exception right now. Not all of them have a corresponding list article; and one does not appear to be necessary. Readers of these musical entertainment categories generally find reading related articles interesting; music is one of the most popular recreational pastimes.
 * The article National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame is a long, established article. It has lots of redlinks so the corresponding category Category:Cowgirl Hall of Fame inductees, also long and established, that only shows articles is quite useful. For example, some one who enjoys the wild west or rodeo would find related articles interesting. It's a narrow interest article, so readers in this area are of the type to find multiple articles interesting.
 * The WWE Hall of Fame has inductees on its main page. They are listed in tables by class (year). It's very convoluted. The main category, Category:WWE Hall of Fame inductees has three subcats to break the inductees into its three types: Category:WWE Hall of Fame Legacy inductees, Category:WWE Hall of Fame team inductees‎, and Category:WWE Warrior Award recipients‎. These sub-categories enable easy navigation. WWE has a massive following on television; readers can't help but be drawn into reading related articles.

I've placed a notice at WP:CENT and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. --dawnleelynn(talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please confine threaded discussion to the discussion section.
 * I added a neutral notice of this discussion to some recent CFD nominations that reference WP:OCAWARD. Thanks for the notifying the WikiProject! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) To allow exceptions for award categories which provide navigation aid to readers who are interested in related articles or where list articles are cluttered with red links or other types of content clutter where the category brings quick access to articles. --dawnleelynn(talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) As this guideline anticipates that exceptions will exist, it makes sense to clarify what those exceptions should be. The value of a category over a corresponding list should be the determining factor. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a good idea.  WP:IAR is supposed to presume there are always exceptions, but sometimes WP:IAR needs a rule.  There's no question that a category is needed for certain defining criteria so we can find the extant articles.  Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose
So this is in effect a wrecking amendment, a proposal which would have the same effect as outright deletion of WP:OCAWARD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) This would seem to completely miss the point of this guideline, as well as WP:NOTDUP. The exceptions have always been driven by the subject matter, basically what is the importance of the subject award in a particular field or to its recipients. It should have nothing to do with whether other formats of organizing that information exist on Wikipedia or what format particular editors may prefer to work with. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) From a conceptual standpoint, the exception is always the same and is already defined:  WP:DEFINING. Mixing up that standard with the WP:NOTABILITY standard for the articles would not be helpful. From a practical standpoint at the article level, this nomination seems to make the false assumption that the awards can only be navigated to through categories. It's pretty standard to have an awards section, like The Beatles, that allow you to get to the award in 1 click instead of 2 and, unlike cats, that link is visible on mobile devices. (I would be open to clarifying the wording to say that the exceptions have to be defining that's usually with the 1 top award in a given field.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Wikipedia is not a primary source. The fact that articles are "connected" should not automatically be leading in creating a category. It may well be the case that a single editor with a special interest in the topic puts effort to connect them. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) It would be good to fix the clarification tag, but the proposed change doesn't clarify, complicates things and is going in the wrong direction. The background to this RFC is probably the CFD discussion referred to above where the OP of this RFC appears (in some very confused comments) to be trying to argue that a category should be kept per WP:NEXIST (which is not about categories at all) rather than deleted per WP:NONDEF. DexDor(talk) 05:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) The normal outcome is "listify and delete".  Most of the categories that come up as OCAWARD are NN awards, which are much better handled by a list, which (if in tabular form) can explain why the person was given the award (i.e. basis if citation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) This proposal misses the point because the criterion for categories is DEFINING: Nobel Prize is defining, Some Random Award probably isn't. It may be helpful to give good examples of what is considered defining, but the current proposal is not an improvement. buidhe 23:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) Per all the above.  The proposal misses all the core principles of categorisation such as WP:DEFINING and WP:NOTDUP.  It would lead to more award categories,  creating yet more category clutter on articles which already tend to suffer from category clutter. for example, Julia Roberts already has 7 awards categories, creating clutter which impedes navigation. We should help our readers by massively culling that set of award categories. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS the proposed wording A typical exception would be where there is an exhaustive set of articles connected by a single, well-defined award, such that a reader is likely to want to browse them as a group applies to nearly every award category. In fact, it may be every single award category; I can't think offhand of even one award category which doesn't fit that definition.
 * 1) Per the above; Also: the examples given in support of the proposal appear not to have been thoroughly tested in CfDs – comparable examples that have gone through CfD are in my recollection rather clear deletes, and if not: making a narrow escape on "lack of consensus" grounds (and might easily be overthrown in a next CfD round). I don't think it is a good idea to build guidance on a lacking base of stable examples. The Beatles' cats are maybe stable, but on the other hand, most of them seem to be rather defining (or, at least would be for most artists), so not really illustrating the viability of "exceptions". More importantly, the current wording of the OCAWARD guidance may be perceived as too much of a depletion of the actual WP:DEFINING guidance (disclosure: to some extent contrived by me, in collaboration with others): "In general" already implies exceptions, the parenthetical "though there are a few exceptions to this" further nurtures the idea that awards partially escape the DEFINING guidance, then the "rather" in the rest of the sentence also rather weakens than strengthens the applicability of the DEFINING guidance, and also the fact that the word "defining" is not linked to any WP:DEFINING guidance makes it a bit open to discussion which kind of "defining" is intended. For that reason I'm formulating a  below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the above. This is way too broad per BHG. I would copy edit this to read: Recipients of an award or honour should be grouped in a list rather than a category, unless the award is a defining characteristic of the recipient, for instance the films categorised in Category:Best Picture Academy Award winners. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to me that WP:NOTDUP: is a reason to support a clarification of what exceptions should be expected, not oppose it. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The point of this guideline is that "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category, but the very definition itself admits to the likelihood of exceptions. This proposal aims to provide the requested clarification about when a category is appropriate instead of, or in addition to, a list article. I can't see that the "importance" of the award (a very subjective determination) could possibly be the factor that decides whether a category for the award recipients should exist. Did the Beatles find World Music Awards important to them? or is the award especially important in the field of music? Surely, the category Category:World Music Awards winners exists because it makes it easy to navigate from the article of one award winner to another. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDUP vs. Template:Cfl I'm wondering if this is a solution in search of a problem. I have nominated a large number of award categories to CFD based on WP:OCAWARD and the nominator and I have respectfully disagreed on a small number of them. With many of my award cat nominations, the correct claim is made that lists, categories, and templates can be complimentary per WP:NOTDUP. There's also been a repeated misunderstanding that the reason I am nominating an award category is because there is also a list.
 * That has never happened.
 * It's confusing cause and effect. When you nominate a category in CFD that fails WP:DEFINING you have some different options for a remedy: you can propose not only deletion and merging but also "listifying" the contents using Template:Cfl. Rather than a list being an input into why a category is non-defining, a list can be a potential output for handling the contents of a non-defining category. Whether or not we agree on this proposal or specific CFD nominations, I do hope my recognition of the roles of categories, lists and templates is clearer! - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that you have demonstrated a clear understanding of the different roles of categories and lists. One serves the purpose of navigation between existing articles in a related group, and the other serves to collect groups of related topics, which may or may not have articles. Lists don't exist to serve the purpose of providing an alternative in deletion discussions.
 * I also think you've misunderstood this proposal. Categories where receiving the award is a defining characteristic of the article subject are not subject to OCAWARD, and never have been. OCAWARD deals only with the set of categories where receiving the award is not a defining characteristic of the article subject. For those cases, generally a list should be used, not a category – but there are some exceptions, and the proposal seeks to clarify what those exceptions are. That is, it seeks to clarify the circumstances where an award category should exist when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic of the article subject.
 * It should be abundantly clear to everyone that none of the awards received by the Beatles were defining characteristics of the group, and yet, here we have four award categories that they belong to. The exceptions exist because categories serve a different purpose from lists, and the proposal seeks to give guidance on the rationale behind the exceptions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with working out whether WP:DEFINING applies or not – that is already a given. Hopefully that gives you a clearer insight in what is being proposed here. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Different Interpretations of "Exceptions" RexxS, you've done a great job getting to the heart of our differing viewpoints:
 * The proposal ... seeks to clarify the circumstances where an award category should exist when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic of the article subject.
 * You read WP:OCAWARD to mean there are "exceptions" where a non-defining category should be retained.
 * I read WP:OCAWARD to mean there are "exceptions" where a list should not be created, but non-notable non-defining categories should always be deleted.
 * I don't know if this brings us closer to consensus but it definitely brings clarity. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, - that makes your position much clearer to me now.
 * Let's see if we can decide which of the two possible readings is correct. I can't find a definition of "non-notable categories" (notability is a property of subjects, not categories), but I'll take it in this context to mean that you believe we should always delete award categories where receiving the award is not a defining characteristic of the category's membership.
 * If your reading is correct, I should be unable to find award categories where the receipt of the award is not a defining characteristic of the category's membership. That's because they will all have been deleted.
 * However, if I make a start at Category:Hall of fame inductees, I can drill down and find hundreds of award categories where the award isn't a defining characteristic of its members. For example: being an inductee into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame couldn't be described as a defining characteristic of Ricky Ponting, yet there he is in Category:Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inductees along with another 52 other Australian cricketers who don't have their induction as a defining characteristic. I can add perhaps another 100 parallel categories that shouldn't exist if your reading is correct.
 * Similarly, if I make a start at Category:Music awards and drill down, I find lots of examples like the Category:Winners of the Albert H. Maggs Composition Award and I submit that not one of the 22 members of that category have their receipt of the award as a defining characteristic. There are dozens more similar Category:Winners of the XYZ Music Award, and anyone can check how much of a defining characteristic of their members they represent.
 * So, I conclude that the reading is as I suggest: there are exceptions to the general rule that a non-defining category should be deleted. Are you willing to concede that now?
 * My interest in this proposal is to codify the grounds on which Category:Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inductees and Category:Winners of the Albert H. Maggs Composition Award are exceptions to OCAWARD. One possibility is that the interested wikiprojects are big enough to frustrate any attempts at deleting them. I sincerely hope that is not the case. On the other hand (as I surmise), it may be that certain categories of award winners are sufficiently comprehensive and well-defined, coupled with being a valuable navigation aid from one recipient's article to another's, that making those categories the exceptions to OCAWARD serves a useful purpose. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I conclude that the reading is as I suggest: there are exceptions to the general rule that a non-defining category should be deleted. Are you willing to concede that now?
 * My interest in this proposal is to codify the grounds on which Category:Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inductees and Category:Winners of the Albert H. Maggs Composition Award are exceptions to OCAWARD. One possibility is that the interested wikiprojects are big enough to frustrate any attempts at deleting them. I sincerely hope that is not the case. On the other hand (as I surmise), it may be that certain categories of award winners are sufficiently comprehensive and well-defined, coupled with being a valuable navigation aid from one recipient's article to another's, that making those categories the exceptions to OCAWARD serves a useful purpose. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Backlog of CFD Noms We both see the same thing when we look at these award categories where many (most?) are non-defining. A handful of retired editors have created thousands of award categories in rapid fire succession (see here, here and here) along with a constant rotation of new-ish editors who misunderstand WP:NOTDUP to mean that list articles automatically are eligible for a corresponding category.

It takes more time to nominate these categories for deletion than it does to create them from a pre-existing list which has left a large backlog of non-defining award categories awaiting CFD nomination. Within categories for discussion, delete/listify is a pretty consistent outcome. Even where there's controversy, with government medals, the disagreement is over defining-ness. I can't recall anyone ever arguing that a non-defining category should be retained.

The real problem here at the article level though. Take a look at the train wrecks at the bottom of the Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Kate Winslet and Prince Leopold articles. That level of non-defining category clutter is worth the ongoing effort to remove and WP:OCAWARD should not be rewritten to make that harder. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your experience that categories are far easier to create than to get rid of. Nevertheless, on Wikipedia, policy follows practice, and as this is a policy discussion, not a CfD, we need to be cognisant that practice seems to allow significant numbers of non-defining categories to exist. There really isn't any way of substantiating the view that they exist because we haven't got around to deleting them yet, so I think that you have a difficulty in opposing this proposal if (as I believe) it accurately reflects the current practice around exceptions to OCAWARD. --RexxS (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, understand about the many categories. But the focus is on exceptions for me too. Let me point out the case that got me involved in the CfDs for a second. See Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 27. These five categories had three editors defending them, myself, montanabw, and atsme. Atsme threw her hands up by the end. There was definitely no case of category clutter here. And, for example, it was clear that the American Quarter Horse articles were defined by the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame and its two categories (same for the other three). The argument regarding the horses that "their success in competitions and events that make both notable. Receiving these awards, often in retirement, is just a reflection of that earlier success and doesn't seem defining..." did not take into account that the hall of fame recognized the horses accomplishments in other ways, their careers as sires, broodmares, their progeny and their lifetime accomplishments, their progeny's accomplishments, etc. See Doc O'Lena or Easy Jet . The CfD was long and complicated. It should not have been so difficult. I think it's a clear case of an exception to the policy since the categories still exist. dawnleelynn(talk) 14:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ffs that 2019 CFD closed as No consensus, not keep; there is a difference. DexDor(talk) 14:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When you're arguing that the only reasons exceptions exist is that you haven't got around to deleting them yet, there really is no difference between keep and no consensus: both blow a hole in that argument. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as you are worried that it will get harder to delete non-defining categories, there can't be carte blanche to delete all award categories as RexxS and I have been trying to point out. This CfD Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15, which I had been trying to defend, just got closed w/ the simple, "The result of the discussion was: delete. With the entries already in the categories already in list and template forms, the general consensus that the information be retained in some fashion should be considered satisfied."; and all other discussion was ignored. Also, the template form was adding during the discussion. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as you are worried that it will get harder to delete non-defining categories, there can't be carte blanche to delete all award categories as RexxS and I have been trying to point out. This CfD Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15, which I had been trying to defend, just got closed w/ the simple, "The result of the discussion was: delete. With the entries already in the categories already in list and template forms, the general consensus that the information be retained in some fashion should be considered satisfied."; and all other discussion was ignored. Also, the template form was adding during the discussion. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @RexxS's argument seems to be roughly that "we have lot of award categories which are clearly WP:NONDEF, so we should formalise an exception to WP:NONDEF".
 * I argue the exact opposite. Instead of entrenching these WP:NONDEF categories, we should delete many more of them, and  reduce the category clutter on these articles. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a very reasonable alternative argument, but it rests on the assumption that you can successfully delete all of the WP:NONDEF award categories. The evidence is that the community won't accept that, so my suggestion is to try to lock down the exceptions to a tolerable sub-set of NONDEF award categories by defining the circumstances in which exceptions may be beneficial. The very guidance at WP:OCAWARD is inviting us to do that. If you don't think the above proposed wording fits the bill, then by all means suggest alternative wording. I just don't think that "No exceptions" is a sustainable position, given the evidence. --RexxS (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * entrenching WP:ILIKEIT is not a step I am willing to take. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * nor I. So how about looking at genuine reasons for exceptions? We all agree on the guideline I'm trying to explore if the ability of categories to facilitate navigation (a property not shared by list articles) can be seen as the cogent reason for exceptions. Or if the other reasons at WP:AOAC or WP:DOAL might play a part. Policy follows practice on Wikipedia and I don't think you can just dismiss the many hundreds of non-defining award categories as ILIKEIT aberrations. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * see that excerpt you quoted? It's about DEFINING characteristics. That's the core of categorisation policy.  You're posing this as a tweak at the edges, but the reality is to hardcode a breach of the core principle.
 * Sure, categories do have some advantages for navigation, as well as some disadvantages. But those pros and cons apply neither more nor less to awards categories than to any other type of category.  So if we hardcode one breach of that principle, we have effectively dumped the whole principle.
 * Thousands of awards categories have been deleted over the years. This entrenchment of ILIKEIT would effectively bring that ongoing cleanup process to a halt. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I know that it's about defining characteristics of a set of pages; that's why I quoted it: to show the disjoint between current guidance and reality in the field of award categories. There is no categorisation policy, only guidance, probably because the community expects more exceptions than would be allowed for a policy. The "core principle" is already breached, many times over, and it doesn't help us to pretend otherwise.
 * I'm only looking at WP:OCAWARD, the venue for this debate, as in reality there is a difference between awards and other fields. This is evidenced by the very existence of OCAWARD and the number of exceptions to OCAWARD in the category system. It is not true that codifying a specific clarification to OCAWARD, as requested, would dump the broader principle of NONDEF.
 * Having a clear idea of what are accepted as exceptions would not bring the "ongoing cleanup process to a halt". On the contrary, it would increase the efficiency of removing ILIKEIT award categories because you would have firmer criteria to judge by, and folks would not waste their time arguing at CfD over whether a particular award category was a legitimate exception to OCAWARD. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the effect would actually be quite the opposite of that. The proposal would make nearly every possible award category an exception to NONDEF, and an exception to OCAWARD.  It is in effect a wrecking amendment. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with BrownHairedGirl's approach on this one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Counterproposal
Replace: by: by (v2): or by (v3): or by (v4): or by (v5): or by (v6): or by (v7): or by (v8): or by (v9):

Survey (counterproposal)

 * Support counterproposal v2 v3, v4 or v5 or v6, v7, v8 or v9 . This may be a bit late to the party, but I think a depleted version of the WP:DEFINING principles is of no use in this context, even if borderline cases are not always at the right side of the WP:DEFINING border: at least the principle should be clear, and supported by the OCAWARD guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) 18:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC) 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) updated 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC) updated 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 2 Would prefer that it be reworded to look at actual articles (not redlink winners): A category of award recipients is only viable if receiving the award is defining for the large majority articles on recipients." But, even as is I think this is an improvement over the current wording RevelationDirect (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v6 - and perhaps change "the recipient" to "that recipient". Some of the other versions may also be better than the current text. DexDor(talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC) v7 is ok, but "most" in v6 is better than "the large majority" in v7. DexDor(talk) 11:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7, otherwise v6 as the clearest expression so far of the primacy of WP:DEFININGness. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7, otherwise v6This seems to represent the clearest guideline to support WP:NONDEFINING in a way that is supportive to helping good faith editors in the award space avoid common mistakes. (Several of the other proposals are superior to the current wording but v6 is the strongest.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7, otherwise v6 per above, I think v7 is the clearest and most helpful description of current consensus while v6 is a close second. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7, otherwise v6 per above. Good discussion. Oculi (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7 or v6, preferably with a clear link and more explicit link to what is defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support v7 or v6, they offer the best clarification of how to apply the concept of definingness in these cases, much better than the ambivalent phrasing in the current text. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (counterproposal)

 * Generally support, but a couple of suggestions. - 1. The emphasis should be on it not being a category; whether it's suitable for a list is covered by separate guidance (e.g. WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN). I suggest something like "Recipients of an award should not be grouped in a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic; however, a list of award recipients may be appropriate.". 2. It should clarify whether "not a defining characteristic" applies to every recipient or any recipient - e.g. change it to "... unless receiving the award is a defining characteristic of every recipient ..." (perhaps with emphasis on the "every"). DexDor(talk) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * P.s. Francis - if you agree with either of my suggestions I'm happy for you to edit your proposal. DexDor(talk) 17:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chose a phrasing based on the first proposal: the second is too exclusive — might be for one recipient the award is not defining, while for 99 others it is: that should not prevent the category as such (see e.g. WP:COP's "Not all categories are comprehensive"). So, tried a somewhat reworked proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any award category would pass that standard. Was that intentional? It's also not what "defining" requires in the abstract, nor have I ever seen a CFD on any topic delete a category because it was not defining for "every" member even though it was generally or for most. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this would be better phrased as something like "A category for recipients of an award should be created only when the award is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the possible entries in that category". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty pass, e.g. Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates; Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners; etc. And indeed, see my reply to DexDor's suggestions above, categories that are viable because being defining for most recipients should not be excluded for not being defining for a few (after with BrownHairedGirl's comment above I see her remark is similar to what I tried to phrase in my second proposal). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even I agree that, if a category is defining to a large majority articles, it should be kept. There will always be super stars like The Beatles that transcend being defined by mortal awards and that shouldn't be a basis for deleting categories for other bands. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think each of these suggestions makes progress in clarifying the OCAWARD guidance. "Most" is going to be more realistic than "all", and whatever form of words is agreed will have to cater for categories of awards that are given not just to individuals, but to groups of people (e.g. music), non-humans (e.g. 's horses), or inanimates (e.g. organisations). It might be worth mentioning that navigation templates are sometimes a viable means of collecting together award winners. You're still going to have try to delete lots of categories like Category:World Music Awards winners if you are certain that a majority of the artists in the category have to be defined by receiving it. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All Winners vs. Those with Articles I would prefer that that the standard focus on actual Wikipedia articles rather than winners of award. A lot of local awards (like Oregon Book Award or Texas Gospel Music Hall of Fame) end up in this catch 22 where the people notable enough to have Wikipedia are clearly not defined by the award but maybe the people who will remain red links forever would be. But it only aids navigation if there are actual articles defined by it RevelationDirect (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments on v2: 1. It (both the visible text and links) should apply to all things that can receive awards (not just people) (awards categories have been added to articles about organizations, places, buildings, and even articles like Blanket). 2. I suggest changing "is not viable" to "should not exist" or "should not be created" (a clearer instruction). 3. The "if that is not the case" wording might be interpreted (by some people) as meaning that a list should only be created in that circumstance - could it be removed? DexDor(talk) 05:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * imho, v3 covers it. However, this is guidance on overcategorization, and imho all the recommendations on listifying don't really belong here (is applicable to any overcategorization topic, so shouldn't be repeated in every section of this guideline), so I also added v4 which no longer refers to lists. Same for "defining": guidance here should not repeat what is applicable to any categorization anywhere, but can go to the specific guidance directly, so v5 is a short version that should suffice here imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would favor keeping the connection with lists since these are two sides of the same coin. Editors create categories instead of lists or, more often, misread WP:NOTDUP to give an automatic pass to create non-defining categories so long as a list exists. Misunderstanding lists is the cause and creating category clutter is the effect with awards. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think we should give editors a clearer instruction than the "is not viable" wording. My suggestion (v3a?) (with small text indicating where there are changes from v3):  DexDor(talk) 12:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the way that this discussion is going. We seem to be developing a consensus very much the opposite of the initial proposal: instead of driving a hole through the core categorisation principle of WP:DEFININGness, we are moving towards a long-overdue clarification of how to apply DEFININGness to awards categories.
 * DexDor's latest proposal is the best so far, but I have one small reservation: the lack of a mention of notability. I will illustrate this by a fictitious example: the Ballymagash Music Prize is issued annually to the best band to have played in Ballymagash in the preceding year.  Most of the winners are non-notable local bands, but in eight of the last 45 years, much local strife was caused by awarding the prize to bands which were not only from outside the village, but even from outside the county.  Six of those outsider bands are WP:NOTABLE, and have articles on en.wp; but only one of the local bands is notable.  Wining the prize is the single greatest defining attribute of the 37 local bands, so Category:Ballymagash Music Prize winners would clearly meet DexDor's criteria.  However, the category would be defining for only one of the six articles in the category ... which is not what was intended.
 * So I suggest replacing defining for most of its recipients with defining for most of its notable recipients. I have also done some other clarifications, including making the existence of the category the first sentence of the guidance (because it's the main issue at stake). So here's v3b:
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. I'd suggest a more precise link (e.g. "may be created if the list meets the notability criteria"). Re "Winning the prize is the single greatest defining attribute ..." - being an Irish band (and type/century) is more defining than any awards received. DexDor(talk) 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the better notability link. And yes, you're right about definingness.  I was Thinking "apart from the time and place attributes", and should have said so. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I skipped a few intermediate versions, and straight to v6 now (combination of BHG + DD's suggestions, also striking a double "only"). Enough versions to choose from, I suppose? So I suggest to proceed with determining which version would make it to the guideline... Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Francis Schonken. That's helpful. @RevelationDirect: does v6 resolve your outstanding concerns? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I really like v6 and I think it's clearer than anything I could have written here and my iVote is updated above. Obviously the goal here is to make it clearer to good faith editors how to create defining categories in the first place. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In v6 I wikilinked "defining" on first instance now; Also added v8, which is a v5 revisited, and doesn't attempt to re-invent WP:SMALLCAT as v6 and v7 appear to be doing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not keen on v8. SMALLCAT is not often an issue with awards categories, so I don't think it needs a mention (and v6 & v7 are dealing with v difft issues). And it seems to me to be much better to spell out the definingness issues rather than to use the word "viable", whose meaning is not pinned down anywhere and which may therefore be interpreted in unpredictable ways. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the proposals that "re-explain" something SMALLCAT-like (and v6 and v7 do that; at least they don't explain whether the first sentence can "trump" SMALLCAT limitations) is that they may have unexpected consequences. I'm thinking primarily about awards that only exist a few years: may be defining for the large majority of its (notable) recipients, say 4 out of 5 (so, allowable as cat by v6 and v7), but since there are unlikely ever more than 4 articles in the category, it is in tension with SMALLCAT: so which one would determine whether the category can exist or not? Does OCAWARD trump SMALLCAT or the other way around? This is not an imaginary example: literary prizes for Dutch-language authors, some of the most prestigious of which are the Bookspot Literatuurprijs and Golden Book-Owl, are almost always defining for their notable recipients. The only downside is that both of them change name every few years, often with some disconnect in the continuity, so that categories named after these awards are mostly impossible (for SMALLCAT reasons), which is the current situation. v6/v7 would change that, proclaiming the categories being possible anyhow.
 * I'm not attached to the "viable", simply liked it because of not being legalese, but if something more legalese-like is needed (to avoid endless CfD proceedings), that should get priority. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, added v9 which may be clearer, & continue supporting v6 & v7 too, which means: I'd defer to those more experienced in category clean-up for what would work best in CfD surroundings, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are certainly instances where Award categories will involve editing guidelines other than WP:OCAWARD as it should be. The recurring problem that creates the need for a specific editing guideline for awards is that editors take a notable award list article and, in good faith, convert it to a corresponding non-defining category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Francis Schonken: I don't see any need to spell out that all the other categorisation principles of WP:CAT and WP:OCAT apply here. Yes, WP:SMALLCAT applies, as does WP:CATVER, WP:SUBCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT etc.  In fact I see a risk that stating them here may lead some readers to assume that they don't apply to the other types of category listed in OCAT.
 * The principle of WP:DEFININGness is absolutely central to en.wp categorisation. It's the core of the whole category system, set out in para2 of the lead of WP:CAT:
 * So the strength of v7 is that it spells out that the limitations on awards categories are not some sort of WP:instruction creep driven by prejudice against awards; they are in fact an application of those core categorisation principles.
 * v9 also omits a lot of other important detail, including the reminder that the existence of a list neither mandates not precludes the creation of a category. That's an important issue to mention because the creators often come to CFD to oppose deletion on the grounds that "but the list exists, so the category should exist too". --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, there seems to be a consensus for revision. Is there enough of one to settle on v7 or what further refinement should we discuss?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, there seems to be a consensus for revision. Is there enough of one to settle on v7 or what further refinement should we discuss?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I come late to this discussion. I regularly patrol WP:CfD and am familiar with the issues.  I regard the normal rule as being that award winners are only listed, not categorised.  Thus "listify and delete" is a regular outcome for award categories.  I would want to make sure that some of the most notable awards, such as Nobel Prize laureates; Victoria and George Cross (awards for exceptional bravery); and such like are retained.  A couple of years ago, I nominated a hall of fame category and someone bit back viciously; I think we agreed that such categories could exist only if the "hall" actually exists as a museum.  I think we have agreed that the Academy Awards ("Oscars") are defining, but the myriad of other film awards are not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Category:Golden Globe Award winners appears to be thriving, along with, for instance, also "winner" categories in Category:Cannes Film Festival – and rightly so, I'd say. There's definitely a lot more than Oscars in the film award winners category. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They may be thriving (by which I guess you mean that editors put articles in them), but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a good use of editor time (maintaining the categories as well as the lists, wikidata ...). DexDor(talk) 18:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure requested
I have posted at WP:ANRFC to ask that this RFC be closed. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Minimum size for a category
Is there any guideline on the minimum useful size of a category? Category:Libraries established in 1979 contained just one article so I upmerged it to Category:Libraries established in the 1970s and nominated for deletion. I have some similar for some categories which contained just two articles. I was wondering if this is standard practice and is documented anywhere. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SMALLCAT. Note there's no fixed number for a smallcat, the number required varies by editor, and there are a number of exceptions. You hit on one of these exceptions, so I've un-nominated for deletion. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found 6 more in 5 minutes. Oculi (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You (MSGJ) are systematically doing this, which is disruptive. You are also taking Category:Libraries established in 1979 out of Category:Libraries by year of establishment and putting them in a decades subcat. Some trees have deleted 'decades' subcats altogether. It would be a much better plan to make sure that all libraries are put in a 'year of establishment' category (the majority are not) before fiddling around with a nicely created but underpopulated scheme. Oculi (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Could the guidance be updated such as... 'Where one's own modus ratiocinendi might lead one to think of, for instance, a place in a country not one's own as of limited potential, there may already be numerous pages in the English Wikipedia that should be added to such a category. For instance, try Tools>What links here (in the left margin of the page) for a town name to find relevant pages; and, even if unfamiliar with that language, where a category is linked to a corresponding category as evident under Languages> (in the left margin of the page), purview of the native-speaking Wikipedia may in some instances serve as proxy for potential for future growth'? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or for a search that is better still, type a nonsense string such as askgjas;gj into the Search box in the top right corner of the page, then press enter, then type the word to be searched for into the Special page>Search box that results, then run that search and review for relevant already existing pages, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed note on SUBJECTIVECAT
I am trying to decide whether to add the following sentence as a caveat to SUBJECTIVECAT:

–<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Not just people associated with
Expanding the scope of WP:OCASSOC beyond people was proposed on this talk page back in 2017, though that suggestion did not get any replies. I reviewed a number of old CfD discussions such as Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 31, Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 21, Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 10, Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 18, Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 17, and Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20, and it is clear that the WP:CONSENSUS is that this also applies to other things than people being "associated with" someone or something. I have therefore to the relevant section. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Actor categories
Hello, I created categories that list the films where an actor played. However my contributions were reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baptx#Why_the_awkwardly-named_categories?

These categories need to be added to film pages in order to find films where 2 actors played together, using category intersections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_intersection#Using_MediaWiki_search_to_find_category_intersections

It would be an open source alternative to IMDb, here is an example: https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&role=nm0000136,nm0000138

Can you confirm that it would be fine using these categories if I just change the name of the categories from something like "Films played by Leonardo DiCaprio" to "Films in which Leonardo DiCaprio acted"?

For information, categories like "Films directed by X" and "Films scored by X" are already allowed. However actors are an even more important / popular part of a film than directors or composers. I think it does not matter if there are a lot of categories, for example actor categories could be separated from other categories or listed at the end. Baptx (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Baptx, it looks like you’ve already gotten a good response and explanation about this on your talk page. It’s not the answer you were hoping for, but it’s consistent with what would be said here. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No it would not be a good idea and any categories like this that go against category guidelines and policies would be nominated for deletion. And if you continued to make them after being told it was a bad idea, Baptx, you could face a temporary block. You don't seem to be listening to experienced editors who are telling you that we don't categorize actors by project or project by actors. Read WP:PERFCAT. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Objection to a specific example
". For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. " I suggest that this wording be removed because I can think of at least one example (albeit historical) where the opposite is the case. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, a traditional powerhouse in college football and feeder to the NFL, has been known in the past to recruit heavily from Catholic high schools. Being Catholic, at least in the modern day, is not a prerequisite to attending most Catholic high schools, especially ones with heavy sports culture, but it's at least a reason for this example to be excluded from the page due to the possibility that some professional players had their careers heavily influenced by their Catholic faith and affiliation.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as speculative, as that's fan fiction, not a reliable source. Fixed your link format (it requires a minimum of 2 parameters separated by a space).
 * How would the religion of the recruits have anything to do with how the game is played?
 * No evidence referees treat the players differently.
 * Doubt NFL cared about the religion of the recruits.
 * Notre Dame is only a small fraction of dozens of "powerhouse" schools.
 * Non-Catholics attended Catholic schools in the US 50+ years ago, and vice versa.
 * Non-Catholic US military families attended Catholic schools overseas 50+ years ago, where that was often the only school available to non-citizens.
 * In England and English colonies, "parochial schools" going back hundreds of years were often run/started by Catholics, where the only other schools were for the rich who could afford the fees. Had no religious requirement for attendence, although usually included religious indoctrination and instruction.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish magicians
I recently created a new category about Jewish magicians. However, I realized after twenty or so additions that I will not possibly be able to find every article about Jewish magicians. Is there any template I can use that can notify others that the category is underpopulated?

Painting17 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Just wait for others to add to it. Are you sure it meets WP:EGRS? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 22:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course! There's lots of Jewish magicians out there. Thanks for telling me, though. Painting17 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OCEGRS at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 24

ESC in country categories
Before I do a large scale nomination, I wanted to gauge whether I'm reading WP:OCVENUE properly. Is Category:Eurovision Song Contest by country and all of the categories within it suitable for a deletion discussion? While some countries have hosted several times, others have only done it once or twice. These would be extremely slow growing categories. Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)