Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 6

Former cast list categories nominated for deletion and Categorization!
Check out the cast lists posted here. Many of these used to be the categories we worked hard to get rid of. Now many are being nominated for deletion. Some people are saying that they should be categories! I hope these don't get deleted. If they do, people will start recreating the categories. Rather than try and get rid of all the "cruft" in Wikipedia, we should be finding the most appropriate spot to put it without deleting it. This way, we could all stop all the constant deletion discussions. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting pretty tired of xFDs and find that they are becoming a bigger and bigger drain of my energy and time on Wikipedia. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not as bad as it sounds. Some of these cast lists are redundant with the cast lists in other articles.  Still, quite a few people are advocating turning these lists back into categories, which would be highly disruptive.  Other people are strongly encouraged to comment on this.  (I will go inform User:Otto4711.)  Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cast lists should almost never be done as categories because it's unnecessary for navigation, potentially adds a large number of categories to actor pages and creates additional maintainence for little to no benefit to the reader. Generally speaking the minimum bar for making something a category is HARDER than that for making something a list. So people advocating turning cast list articles into categories are misguided, and I'd suggest making that comment on afds in that regard if you see it. Dugwiki 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple location categories, is it overcategorization?
As a recent example I just saw: Chris Jericho. He has 4 "people from" categories (and I would imagine some articles are worse. Is it really notable to list each and every place they lived in a category? If someone lived in Houston, Texas for one day: would that mean the category must be listed? As another example: let's say a person was born somewhere, then moved throughout the world because of their parents being in the military. Would all those locations need to be listed? This seems to be clear overcategorization to me.I didn't see anything about this, but if there is something about it.. point it out to me. Frankly, something should be in place, otherwise category clutter of locations will be worse. I can understand one, possibly two locations...but when it gets to be more it's a problem. Something such as "the person must've lived there for 5 years or more" for it to be listed as a category, would be appropriate in my view. RobJ1981 20:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I briefly toyed with the idea of nominating the entire Category:People by city hierarchy for deletion. I know that a lot of people are dissatisfied with the hierarchy.  Maybe it is worth pursuing.  The category tree is so vast, however, that it is impossible to tag all of the categories.  The nomination would need to be broadcast somehow across all of Wikipedia.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the main minimal criteria would be that the article itself has to a verifiable reasonably significant mention of the location being categorized. So for most articles that would mainly include where the person was born and where they currently reside at the time the article was written.  In some cases, like Chris Jericho, the article mentions one or two other transitory locations where the person did something significant.  In Jericho's case, he officially bills himself as having been from both New York and Canada, and he currently resides in Florida.  Therefore he might very well be a reasonable case where you have three or four different category locations.  Note that it's unlikely you'd have an actual significant and verifiable mention of more than two or three or four locations within a single article (odds are that if the person only lived there very briefly it wouldn't even be mentioned.) Dugwiki 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding occupations by ethnicity
Just an FYI since I'm pretty sure this will be of interest to some of you I've posted a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups proposing that some of the categories under "occupations by nationality" be moved to "occupations by ethnicity". The reason is I noticed that, for example, things like Category:Jewish comedians were listed as "occupations by nationality", but in this context the word "Jewish" was referring to ethnicity and not nationality. (Jackie Mason, for example, is of Jewish ethnicity but his nationality is American.) Therefore things like "Jewish occupations" which refer to ethnicity need to be moved out of the occupations-by-nationality schemes and into something like "occupations by ethnicity".

Currently I need to wait for the results of a merger to be resolved before I can proceed, but I'm taking feedback on titles for the new category scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. I mention this here because I recall quite a bit of interest in OCAT discussions regarding ethnic categorization, so feedback from the regular posters here is most welcome. Thanks! Dugwiki 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary inclusion criterion
In some cases, particularly sports, numbers are not arbitrary; there have been CfDs where people came down on both sides of the issue. For example, Major League Baseball players with 500 home runs or Soccer players with 100 or more caps. These cutoffs are widely seen as significant accomplishments and may justify categorization. Can we reach consensus on this one way or another and add it to the article? Matchups 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, a particular number should have significant notable meaning in an official capacity to not be considered arbitrary. That would mean that for example the official professional arbiters of the sport itself convey special highly recognized awards at that specific number.  There has to be something concrete and notable and written about attached to achieving that number.


 * Even if you have all that, though, a lot of the related awards are better handled as list articles per this guideline. So even if the award is notable and revolves around a particular numerical goal, the award winners are usually better listed as a list article than a category.


 * Therefore the two things to watch for with these numerical categories are 1) is there some official, concrete, notable award connected with that number? If not it's probably an arbitrary number. And 2) even if the number isn't arbitrary, does the list of award winners warrant a category? Most award winners should be done as lists. Dugwiki 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It turns out that the "soccer players with 100 caps" are actually given membership of the "FIFA Century Club", thus with an official associated award it's not arbitrary. That's not really a good example.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would more properly be Category:FIFA Century Club inductees or something to that effect, which illustrates what should probably be a guiding principle here: If the number equates to a named award, use the name of the award, thereby taking away the sole rationale for every having such number-named categories. >;-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Intersection by location
I am curious to see if any editors may realize that categories like Category:People from New York City or Category:People from Dallas may need to be broken down in some logical way. This currently is not possible due to the intersection by location guideline, which leaves room for states but not large cities. Please see Category:People from Cincinnati for examples on an attempt to break down the large category. The subcategories all will deleted eventually due to various nominations. All have not been nominated, but will be eventually. Since I founded WikiProject Cincinnati, I wanted to find a way to better organize categories pertaining to the city. I believed that the project would also give more weight to such categorization, but also knew I'd face challenges. If I were a researcher trying to do a book or paper on Cincinnati, such categories would be very useful for me in such a pursuit. For instance, if it was about science I would have Category:Scientists from Cincinnati. If I was doing a paper on law in Cincinnati, there would be Category:Jurists from Cincinnati. None of these will exist pretty soon, and they will just get merged right back into Category:People from Cincinnati. Does anyone perhaps see such categorization as undercategorization, or am I alone in this sentiment? I'm just curious to know how I go about gaining consensus for a change to that guideline, as I think it works well for smaller cities but not well at all for larger ones. My proposal is that we allow cities with very large categories of people to be broken down by umbrella occupations. Not, ie. "Cincinnati musicians, but "Musicians from Cincinnati". This would allow for categorization of people born in Cincinnati, and those articles where that person has a very strong connection to the city. I ran into no trouble breaking categories pertaining to Cincinnati except those pertaining to persons. (Mind meal 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC))


 * One big problem with an intersection approach is that it is geometrically multiplicative in the abstract; while career and location are 2 dominant variables in biographical searches, there are plenty of others - ethnicity, gender, religion, politics, etc. You could easily end of with Category:Jews from Cincinnati, Category:Atheists from Cincinnati, Category:Women from Cincinnati, etc., etc., creating truly absurd numbers of categories. Furthermore, without getting to fine detail (e.g. lumping painters, sculptors and illustrators into "fine artists"), one of the standard occupational categorization systems has over 800 occupations (see Bureau of Labor Statistics - Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System). The intersection approach will ultimately give Cincinnati a very large number of sub-categories. Personally, I find it easier to search for such intersections with Google; for example, if I want to know if there are any notable gay architects from Cleveland, I search Google with: "People from cleveland" LGBT architects site:en.wikipedia.org. It would be nice if there was a Wikipedia Special page for searching on intersections, unions, and other set relations of categories, but I'm not aware of one - yet. It would also be nice if the Persondata system] had more attributes (and was more heavily adopted), but single attribute categorization works well enough for me. [[User:Studerby|Studerby 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Category intersection is a proposal for a category intersection system. Carcharoth 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of...
There is a bit of controversy at the moment about such articles as List of Rajputs and List of Poles. What do we think, would this be better represented as a category, or as a list, or both? Perhaps we can add something to either this page or OLIST.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, perhaps some people could take a look at WP:OLIST in general? There is the mistaken belief that "it is an essay" or that accurately describing AFD precedent cannot be the basis for a guideline.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support OLIST as a guideline. Probably needs a bit more work to avoid conflicting with WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA. See also my comment here. Carcharoth 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My general philosophy is that categories should have a higher bar for creation than lists. That's because a bad category can affect potentially a hundred articles while a bad list is pretty much just an article on its own. Also, note that lists and category ont he same topic can work in concert, with the lists providing additional information on the side about the entries that categories can't.

So generally speaking if can be a category, it theoretically can also be a list article. The converse is not true - not all list articles make for good categories.

As to the two specific debates above, I noticed that one of the main complaints about them was a lack of references and verification. List articles still have to have their entries properly referenced just like normal articles have to have their information referenced. Dugwiki 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure I like a couple of items in OLIST, so at the moment I wouldn't support it becoming a guideline. I won't go into detail on that here, though. Dugwiki 15:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest starting with the parts of OLIST that people are agreed upon. It's okay if that's only two or three points out of ten. We can add the rest if (if ever) we agree on those as well.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't go into the details on this page, but I posted a fairly lengthy reply on what I don't like about the current OLIST proposal (which was pretty much every section). I would in fact say that there were almost no sections I agreed with on OLIST when it comes to handling lists. Dugwiki 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding interesection of state and occupation
I've been in the process of reviewing and completing the scheme for Category:California people by occupation which was set up a while back as a way to index the exceptionally large Category:People from California by occupation. Since the work I'm doing on that category is somewhat related to the recent discussion of intersection by location, I thought I'd share some comments on the goals of a scheme like Category:California people by occupation and how it relates to OCAT.

OCAT is obviously correct that in most cases you don't need to divide topics by geographical boundary. That's especially true for topics whose categories aren't particularly large and for geographic boundaries that are particularly small. For example, I don't think most cities or even most states need a complete by-occupation subdivision because the number of articles involved isn't really large enough to make it all that useful. And for some occupations the fact that the person is in one city versus another city doesn't make a big difference.

However, for really, really large geographical categories of biographies it can be useful to create a subdivision scheme by occupation. Think of it from a reader's perpective using the category system. If I'm a reader interested in perusing articles on notable Californians, for example, I'm fairly likely to want to view bios about people in similar professions rather than just a big alphabetical list by name. (Another likely scenario would be that I'd want to view people within specific cities or counties, but I'll stick to occupations here.) I might want to read about artists from the state, or about businesspeople or military people, etc, depending on what my specific interest is. So rather than present the reader with a massive phonebook like directory of names of Californians, it's useful to group those names into broad occupational subcategories. Thus instead of placing someone in Category:People from California, they would appear in Category:California writers.

For such a scheme to be useful, it needs to completely cover all the biographies, meaning that theoretically all bios should fit within one of the subcategories. In order to achieve this, the categories need to be broad, top level occupational groupings similar to those in Category:People by occupation. In fact, using top level groupings from Category:People by occupation is a way to make sure that the scheme is consistent with similar occupational schemes. The goal is to keep each of the occupational categories as broad as possible while still covering all the bios. (The current set seems to do a pretty good job on that front.)

So in regards to avoiding category clutter and overly specific categories, I think the keys here when considering occupational subdivision schemes for a region are:


 * Is the region large enough to warrant it? If there aren't a ton of biographies in the regional parent, it's probably not worth pursuing subdividing them.
 * If a complete subdivision appears to be useful, keep the occupational groupings as broad as possible. I'd recommend modelling them after categories listed under Category:People by occupation, and using a category description such as "This category holds people who fall under Category:People from California and whose occupation falls under Category:Entertainers".  These broad subcategories should usually not be further subdivided unless there's already a well established scheme (eg Actors and Musicians are already subdivided by state, so those subcategories exist under the parent of Category:California entertainers.)
 * Do not replace national categories with state ones or city ones within an article because not all states and cities have occupational groupings. For example, a California writer should be under both Category:American writers (or a subcategory) and Category:California writers.  Keep in mind that the goal here isn't to subdivide the occupation, but is simply to subdivide the geographical area.
 * Most biographies will only fall under a single state category, sometimes two, but a rare handful will have three or more state categories. (It's quite uncommon, but really large biographies of people who moved around a lot sometimes have a lot of state categories.) In those instances I'd suggest using only the most appropriate occupational category within a given state, meaning that you should probably use the occupation of the person while they were living in that state.  Also, I've seen three or maybe four articles with four or five state categories where California, for example, was only mentioned once and only in a trivial way (ie they lived in California for a couple of years doing something non-notable).  In those cases you can probably safely remove that state category altogether since the person isn't apparently at all notable for being from that state in the first place.
 * If you do subdivide a large regional category, I'd suggest sticking to mainly subregions and occupations for the biographies. The reason is that subregions are an obvious subdivision of regions, and a person's occupation is almost always their most notable trait (people are usually known for things they did in the course of their occupation).  And occupation is universal - all bios have an occupational category (or, if they're unemployed, can go under "Celebrities" which covers famous individuals with no notable occupation).  Other traits are either not universally categorized (eg most articles don't have an ethnicity or religion or political category) or are not something the person is known for (eg most people aren't known for their gender or date of birth).  Therefore I recommend that if you consider dividing a region into subcategories, stick to just subregions and occupational groupings. They are the ones that are most universal, natural and that represent defining traits.

Anyway, I thought that with all the back and forth in the last few days on this guideline on the wording for Intersection by location, I thought I'd provide a specific example of an exception to the rule and how I've been handling it to help reduce potential conflicts and maintain a scheme for a particular state that is hopefully more useful to the reader than just a huge list of names. I think you really have to look closely at any given state or city case by case before pursuing a complete subdivision. And likewise you'd have to carefully consider whether

Well, back to the cleanup I've been doing. But hopefully this is some food for thought on things to consider regarding specific occupations-by-state and occupations-by-city schemes. Dugwiki 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow!


 * I think that the above is a great explanation of usage. I'll see if I can somehow clarify the existing text similarly.


 * Thanks for the insight. : ) - jc37 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah, I obviously wasn't intending to use this as something to include in OCAT. It's a bit wordy. :) Dugwiki 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this, the more it looks like a style guide. What do you think about either merging this to an existing page, or starting a new one? I think it could be quite useful, and shouldn't be lost in some talk page archives : ) - jc37 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this, but want to see language about large cities. Our "People from..." categories for cities have become too large in many cases. The solution would be to place the city + occupation category in its matching state+occupation category. That is if others feel large cities could use this. (Mind meal 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Hmm, I hadn't really considered making it an essay or style guide when I posted it. But if you guys think it's worthwhile I can probably convert this into an essay page that could then be later incorporated into a relevant style guide if desired. Dugwiki 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds great : ) - jc37 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I archived this post as a personal essay at Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation. Dugwiki 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Performer by performance
Does anyone object to adding a note to the performer by performance section to clarify that people shouldn't be added to project-specific categories? In other words, if we don't have Category:TV Show X people then the people from TV Show X shouldn't be added to Category:TV Show X? I would've thought that this would be self-evident but apparently it's not, so, any problem with it? Otto4711 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea, though it strikes me that several of the OCAT sections should have something similar. I'll see if I can come up with something generic for the introduction. - jc37 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence to the specific section. Otto4711 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Families
Families have recently been added to this by Otto4771 in an attempt to create an argument in favour of his deletion campaign. As family categories are very commonly used, and Otto only has about two supporters for his campaign, this does not reflect consensus, and I am going to remove it. RegRCN 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was added to reflect the fact that over a hundred family categories have been deleted as overcategorization and your referring to it as a "campaign" indicates an abject failure on your part to assume good faith. I don't know why it's such a trauma to include the words "and families" in the guideline. Otto4711 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for notifying me that you wanted to re-open this discussion. Not that your action was as much re-opening the discussion as it was acting unilaterally in total disregard of the discussion that had come before, but then I guess that act of good faith was too much to expect, considering. Otto4711 14:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with your approach is that you use the guideline to try to make discussion of individual cases appear illegitimate, which shows a complete lack of respect for opposing points of view. Wikipedia should be open to discussion. If you are confident of your arguments, surely they can stand up in each case. RegRCN 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem, Reg, that you are mistaken as to the nature of Wikipedia guidelines.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my actions, Reg. If you choose to look upon my citing the guideline as seeking to make opposing viewpoints "illegitimate," that's your issue. I do not seek to bar anyone from participating as fully in CFD discussions as they choose. That does not mean, however, that if someone comes in making the same exact arguments that have been made and rejected dozens of times before that I'm not going to point that out. Otto4711 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Links
I think (ignoring the accusations of cabalism and lack of good faith), that the best plan of action next would be for each of you to link to the CFD discussions that support your (plural) positions. - jc37 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over the information below, I think that there is more than enough to justify reinserting the sentence. It would seem to be the "rule", rather than the exception. - jc37 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He has only had minor categories deleted. While we have categories for just about all of the most prominent families in world history, it is inappropriate to have a guideline with purports that there is a consensus against such categories. RegRCN 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone were saying "delete all family categories" then all this hair-tearing and attempts at ranking how "minor" the deleted family categories are might make a little bit more sense. But, and here's the thing, no one is saying that. I have never said that all family categories should be deleted. I have never said that some family categories aren't useful. All I have ever said is that the same logic that applies to categories named for individuals applies to categories named for families. If the categories relating to the members of a family can easily be interlinked and appropriately categorized without the family category, then the family category is probably overcategorization just like a category named for any particular member of that family would be. That's it. That's the sum total of my opinion about family categories. How threatening. Otto4711 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are not saying that all family categories should be deleted is the main reason why your approach is so aggravating. The wording in the guideline does not mention any reasons why some family categories should be kept. It is one-sided, and functions as a tool that supports only deletion, and gives no credence to the inclusionist position, which you claim you would support in some circumstances. The way you make your nominations, you are more or less claiming that you have a right to speedy delete any family category you choose. You acknowledge that some such categories are valid, but treat the discussion of any family category you choose to nominate as being already over due to the backing of the guideline. As you accept that some family categories are valid, you should be prepared to argue each case on its own merits, and to allow others to do so as well, without throwing at them a guideline, which you present as decisive and unanswerable when it supports you - but assume to be irrelevant when it does not. RegRCN 13:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you're finding the process so aggravating, but to be blunt that's not my problem or my fault. I am not claiming in any way that I have the right to speedy delete any category. As has been explained to you more than once in CFD discussions, linking to a guideline is a shortcut so that one doesn't have to type the same long explanation time after time after time. Not sure why that's such a problem for you. Otto4711 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Otto took the time to "cite sources" below, as requested. As asked above, does RegRCN have sources to cite supporting their claims? ("Sources" = CfD discussions.) - jc37 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my links
The story behind the family category deletions as I recall it started with this CFD, which sought to simplify some sports family structures. A number of them were deleted rather than merged under the theory that several of them were overcategorization. About six weeks later we got this CFD for a family of sports broadcasters. It was nominated without comment and, based on the previous CFD and other recent eponymous deletions, I suggested deletion based on overcategorization. Based on that CFD, I nominated the remainder of the sports broadcasting families subcats and the lead category. In both instances, my OC argument was accepted and all nominated categories were deleted. Next I nominated the Baseball families category and all subcats and all were deleted, along with another family the same day. Hockey families and its subcat were next nominated and deleted. This was followed by two categories for the Baldwin brothers, Football families, Basketball families, The Duff family, Professional wrestling families (several of whom had more members than Category:Mankiewicz family does), Circus families, Musical families, Show business families, more show biz families, Newton family, Lupino family, Lowell family, Earle family, Carter family, more show biz families, Linley family, more Hollywood families, still more Hollywood families, yet more Hollywood families, The Marx Brothers (surely as prominent a family as the Mankiewiczes), still more Hollywood families, more Hollywood families, French-Canadian families, still more Hollywood families, yet another set of Hollywood families, still again more Hollywood families, Hollywood families again some more and there are other examples but all of these categories should be ample to illustrate the discussion that took place to reach a consensus that family categories ought to be treated like eponymous categories for purposes of the overcategorization guidelines. In the midst of all of these deletions of family categories, I only recall one set that wasn't deleted as overcategorization, for the subcategories of Category:Romanian boyar families for which the arguments for retention focused on the difficulty in otherwise appropriately categorizing the family articles, which of course is part of the recognized exception to the OC guideline! So, given the extensive discussion and precedent, including a retention that IMHO supports the precedent, I again fail to understand why it's such a big deal to include categories named for families in the eponymous people guideline. Otto4711 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the initial discussion which followed my attempt to add the family categories to the guideline, including revisiting it two months later and having no objections raised. Otto4711 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you can easily demonstrate that there are many inappropriate family categories. What would be good is if you went through Category:Families and selected some categories that you think are worth having. If you feel that no family categories are worth having, then I would regretfully have to oppose your proposal as being excessive. I have a few categories in mind that are worth keeping, but would be interested in seeing what you think first. Carcharoth 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better way to put this is to ask you what you would do with all the articles in the subcategories of Category:Families if they were upmerged to Category:Families. ie. wipe out the subcategory system and start again from scratch. How would you propose subcategorising the family articles? I would say that the only articles in Category:Families and its subcategories should be family articles. Articles about individuals, grouped together under family categories, should be part of a structure headed by Category:Categories named after families. Carcharoth 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at all this more closely, I support the proposal that most eponymous family categories are examples of overcategorisation. An example of one that is not is Category:Brontë family, but the real problem there is the categorisation being all wrong. It is the same argument that sees Category:Categories named after people wrongly placed in Category:People. The articles on people should be placed in Category:People, but the categories named after people shouldn't be, because they include more than just people. Categorising categories is different from categorising articles. When you categorise a category that has a name similar to that of an article, don't categorise the category as if it were the article, but think about what is inside the category, and categorise the category on that basis, not the 'name' of the category. Does that make sense?

I'll use Category:Brontë family as an example. It has been placed in Category:English families, but that is incorrect. It should be placed in Category:Categories named after families. The only article from the category that should be placed in Category:English families is, of course, Brontë. This is because 'family categories' are an example of 'broad categorisation, bringing in lots of diverse articles related by the category topic. Someone looking through Category:English families won't see Category:Brontë family. Instead, they should see Brontë, and then navigate to the article, and then from there find Category:Brontë family. Another example is Category:Darwin-Wedgwood family. Only the family article should be in Category:English families. The category should be in Category:Categories named after families. Carcharoth 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these deletions are dominated by a few users, led by Otto4771 and they do not represent a consensus. His most recent deletion was overturned on Deletion review. RegRCN 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant that one deletion by Otto got overturned. CFD is a public process and its outcome does represent consensus, particularly if consistent over a period of months.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, discussions where only one or two people take part should be more easily overturned or later relisted than others. Sure, many people may have not bothered to participate, but absence of extensive participation does not mean that those participating are correct in what they say. Carcharoth 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My take on eponymous family categories is basically the same as my take on all eponymous categories. If the main article for the family serves as an ample navigational hub for the family, then you don't need a category for it. I'm not dismissing family categories out of hand; I'm just saying that the category needs to clearly serve a navigational purpose that isn't already performed well by just typing the family's name in the search box and calling up the main article.

Also note that in the particular case of tracing family trees by the category system you can potentially get a lot of overlapping clutter. That's because if you go back far enough family trees grow and intersect at an exponential rate. Therefore at a minimum such family categories should be limited only to people for whom the family identification is clear. Keep in mind that the names of people change due to marraige, and different families can have the same last name, so identification of whether or not someone belongs to a particular family tree isn't just a matter of name matching. Dugwiki 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about any category could be replaced by an article as a "navigational hub". Why should that be seen as an advantage in this field, when it is otherwise largely overlooked? Many users are accustomed to navigating using the category system. It's not helpful to create a glitch in the system whereby when they are on the article for a member of a prominent family, they suddenly have to think, "Now if I want to navigate to related articles on a defining aspect of this person, I can select one of the categories at the bottom of the page, unless that defining aspect is their family. We don't do family categories, so I have to type the family name in the search box instead." Most users are just casual readers, so they are never going to pick up on that quirk. If the category they might expect to see isn't there, they will probably just assume that wikipedia doesn't have a tool for navigating to where they want. RegRCN 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, they can be reading along through the article and click on the links within the article as they find them without having to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the article, click a category link and then another article link. So if they're reading about, say, Amy Lowell, they find in the very second sentence a link to Lowell family with its links to Notable Lowells, a link to Percival Lowell in the third sentence and a link to Abbott Lawrence Lowell also in the third sentence. Otto4711 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to reply briefly to RegRCN's comment that "Just about any category could be replaced by an article as a "navigational hub." That statement isn't true. Categories are better suited at certain types of indexing than articles, and vice versa.  I doubt anybody would even think to try and replace Category:Living people with an article, for example.  Likewise it would be extremely difficult to organize Category:People by occupation by article links.
 * But in the case of most of these eponymous categories, the main article itself is already doing just fine for navigation. From a reader's perspective, if I want to read about a subject, the first thing I'll try is to type the subject in the search box.  Up comes the main article.  If that article already well organizes everything I need to know about the subject, why would I then need an additional category named after that article that only contains links within that article?  In such cases the category is serving a redundant function that's not likely to be very useful to a reader, while simultaneously is increasing the amount of editorial maintainence required to handle categorizing the article and all its associated articles.  It's basically increased work load for little to no gain.  And when you're talking about potentially thousands of such categories, that workload increase is substantial.
 * So some things, like organizing large sets of articles from a variety of topics, are well suited to categories. Other things are better handled by just providing a proper index within a main article, or by providing a list article.  In the case of eponymous categories, the main article usually suffices. Dugwiki 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or even more briefly, See WP:CLS : ) - jc37 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of eponymous category bit
I've rewritten the eponymous category bit, as I fear people were beginning to miss the advantages of eponymous categories. See my edit here. Sometimes categories need time to evolve, and time for articles to be both written and found. Eponymous ones may start out looking bad, but can end up being a useful aggregation of articles which can then either be integrated back into the main article, or spun off into topic categories, or even, in the major cases, used to create a portal on a topic. Any problems, please discuss here. Carcharoth 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Eponymous section has a tendency to grow in size, length, explanation, example, etc., as an attempt to establish a guideline about naming conventions here.
 * I think we should consider a merge to Categorization of people, with a link to that from here. (And possibly a link at WP:NCCAT as well.) - jc37 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A problem with the merger suggestion is that not all eponymous categories are for "people". The same logic advising against biographical eponymous categories also applies to musical groups, films, television shows, companies and pretty much any other topic that is covered by a single comprehensive main article.  It doesn't only apply to "people". Dugwiki 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A point to throw in here is that I recently argued at CfD for an eponymous category to be renamed. Don't forget that renaming can solve problems. The case in point here is Category:Immanuel Velikovsky -> Category:Velikovskian studies. I also find that eponymous categories are closely related to "see also" lists, "what links here", and portals. Sometimes it is easier to browse a list of see also's, or an eponymous category, or a portal, rather than read an article. It is a different way to browse content, and I think the standard should be to wait until a minimum number of 'topic' articles are available. As a non-name example, it could be argued that Category:Opera is an eponymous category 'named' after the topic opera. Carcharoth 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should mention that in that specific cfd I disagreed with your suggestion of creating Category:Velikovskian studies for various reasons. I'm not necessarilly against categories for important academic topics as a general concept, but this particular one seemed too vague and didn't have any supporting associated Wiki article. So I wouldn't suggest it as a specific example of how to interpret the guideline. Dugwiki 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of the guideline
The section about families was added during a discussion when it was pointed out that the guideline did not actually say what Otto claimed it said. The category in contention was subsequently retained. Thus this section has been controversial throughout and has no place in a guideline that purports to represent consensus. RegRCN 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The eponymous guideline doesn't say there are "no exceptions". There do exist some eponymous categories.  However, as a general rule, many topics do not require eponymous categories with the same exact name, including people, musical groups, companies, films, television shows, and other entities.  The basic principle that when a main article serves sufficiently as a navigational hub an eponymous category probably isn't necessary is sound and has been used for many deletions of unneeded categories for quite a while.


 * So without commenting on the single family category you claim was retained (and which for all I know was retained as a legitimate exception to the general rule against such categories), it does not in any way invalidate the entire section. Dugwiki 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note how the top of the page says that the page "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Note also that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only family category that's been retained recently that I'm aware of was Category:Mankiewicz family, which was nominated for deletion at 13:03 6 August 2007. Here is the eponymous guideline as it existed at the moment of that nomination. The guideline clearly includes the line "This guideline should also be considered for categories named after families, bands and television series. Examples: Sports broadcasting families, ZZ Top, American Dad!." If you are referring to some other CFD for a family category, please specify which one because as of right now it looks like you're either mistaken or fibbing. Otto4711 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it that was not meant as a response to me?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was a response to Reg. Otto4711 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline on Wikipedia to point people at to demonstrate indenting on talk pages? That question is for Radiant! :-) Carcharoth 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Families and bands
These categories group closely related items and are useful for readers. The campaign against them seems to aim to reduce the number of categories as an end in itself. The number of users who have created such categories is vast, but only a few users (only one principal) are regulars in the deletion process. Thus it is evident that the many who create these categories represent the consensus, while those who delete them are a minority who have enjoyed success simply due to persistence. This reveals a key weakness of Wikipedia, ie that power goes to those who are most active, not to the majority or to those with the strongest arguments. Postlebury 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The members of the latest batch of nominations alone were created by 15 different users over a period of two years, but it is always the same handful who push through the deletions. It seems to me that it is the many who use these categories that represent the consensus of the community as to what is valuable, rather than a handful of active deletionists. Postlebury 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that hundreds of people make bad articles or categories doesn't make them any less bad. People make mistakes all the time but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be corrected.  So rather than counting the number of such categories that are erroneously created, it might be better to consider how many such categories have been deleted and their deletions supported by the admins.  In the case of eponymous categories, the reasoning behind the guideline is fairly clear, and it has been held up numerous times on cfd. That consensus of actual cfd results and the rationale behind it is what forms the basis for having the eponymous section in this guideline.  Dugwiki 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, the people who nominate eponymous categories for deletion are not the people deleting them. Rather the deletions are carried out by the closing admins who aren't taking part in the cfd discussion itself.  So if the arguments against these eponymous categories were without merit or significantly disputed, it's quite likely the admins would likewise not delete them. The fact that so many of them get deleted is further indication that the people who actually control the delete button are accepting the deletion arguments. Dugwiki 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are over-stating the role of admins here and assuming they are infallible and that admins never let their own opinions sway their judgement (they shouldn't, but it happens). Admins should use their experience to point out when policies should over-ride a consensus, but to say the deletions are "supported by the admins" sets them up in the role of judges. In fact, the community is doing the judging, and admins should close as "no consensus" when there is no consensus. Carcharoth 09:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actor by film genre categories?
I noticed a few actor-by-film-genre categories today that seemed a little questionable. Specifically, I noticed Category:Action film actors, Category:Western film actors and its subcategory Category:Spaghetti Western actors. Each of these includes actors who are in a lot of movies of that type. So Clint Eastwood, for example, appears in all three since he's done action movies, westerns and spaghetti westerns.

It's the Clint Eastwood thing that makes me wonder if this actor by film genre scheme is a good idea. Prolific film actors are going to appear in many different film genres, or even possibly all the major film genres. I'd be worried that if this caught on with, say, "Sci-Fi film actors", "Horror film actors", "Comedy film actors" and other things it might be a bit of a clutter.

However I didn't feel quite strongly enough about these to immediately recommend deletion. It's more of a gut feeling. Since you folks tend to have strong opinions on performer-by-performance type categories, I thought I'd put these categories here for feedback. Do you think they're worth keeping, or should they be looked at more closely for possible deletion? Dugwiki 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your instinct is right. Actors cross genres from film to film and just with the two you mentioned there's already sub-genre fragmentation. Categorizing them by genre is going to lead to untold numbers of categories that add little nagivational or organizational value. Otto4711 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be quintessential list material to me. Not only to reference the term in question (such as Spaghetti Western), but also to verify each actor's inclusion, and even to list the including films. - jc37 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A number of these categories are under discussion here. Otto4711 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with y'alls in saying this is overcategorization. The CfD Otto pointed to narrowly came down to a keep (by no consensus), on the basis that it is similar to Category:Musicians by genre, which also strikes me as potential overcat, though less so; it is much easier to jump from a soap opera to an action film to a sitcom, than to go from playing classical to jazz to speed metal.  Even so, the propensity to invent new sub-sub-sub-sub-genres every other month it seems, vs. the rate at which new musical instruments are invented, suggests to me that Category:Musicians by instrument would be a better subcategorization scheme. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

By project
This seems rather broad and contrary to Category:People by occupation. So it would seem that these discussions are the exceptions, not the "rule". Am I missing something? - jc37 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of scope. "Film directors" is about an occupation, and a valid category. "People who have directed a film in the JAWS series" is about a project, and is of doubtful practicality.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the issue is specificity. Though that would seem to be covered under other sections on the page, then. Such as Narrow intersection: "director" and "some film". Though I guess nearly any category could be deleted that way, since "narrow" could be considered subjective.
 * Anyway, this seems to come back to the question I had waaay back (even before this guideline) when I asked about "creators by creation". Perhaps we should revisit this? - jc37 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is seemingly that it comes up a lot. It's not very different from "performers by performance". "Actors" is useful categorization - "Actors who have portrayed Foo" is not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding categorizing artists by specific project, such as "People who have directed a Star Trek episode", a major question to ask is how many such projects of that type can a prolific artist engage in? An actor or director, for example, might work on hundreds of films and television shows, while a prolific writer might write a hundred of books in all sorts of settings and genres. It's this multiplicity and potential for cross category clutter that is the main problem we'd want to avoid.

Now that's not to be confused with categorizing projects-by-artist, such as "Books by Stephen King" or "Albums by Frank Sinatra". Those categories work ok because there is usually a one-to-one correspondence between the project and its creator. (Sometimes you have a collaborative work, but those are an exception and usually still only involve a small handful of primary people at the top producing the work.) So that's why something like Category:Albums by artist is an accepted scheme, but categories like "Artists by specific types of songs they sing" generally aren't. Dugwiki 15:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And as I recall, the rule of thumb was essentially about how many of a type were involved in a work. So for example, performers by performance is a bad idea because there are many performers to a single performance, and each performer may be in a myriad number of performances, both of which can cause "category clutter" (this is partially why films by actor are disallowed, but songs by artist are currently "allowed"). While by comparison, authors, sculptors, and the like typically share a 1:1 ratio with their works. (Yes there are usually financial backers of some kind, who often have their "say", as well as editors, and other such "helpers", but they are also typically normally and nominally ignored.)


 * So again, I wonder about the disallowing of "Creators by creation". Sculptors by image type; Authors by genre; Watchmakers who have worked on or designed Timex watches; etc. - jc37 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the edits I've made recently address a lot of this, though someone who is aware of funky exceptions like Category:Albums by artist (which is definitely performance by peformer, on its face) may need to enumerate these oddballs and if possible identify the thread that makes them valid exceptions. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposing change to Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference
I'd like to propose revising a sentence of this section for clarity as follows: "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." --> "Likewise, in categories by career, people should only be subcategorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers." I believe the addition of a few words makes more evident the meaning of intersection. I'd also like to note that some of the examples may be a little problematic. This rule seems to be about subcategorizing people--"LGBT literature" is about a sub-genre of fiction. :) A better example might be "LGBT ministers" or "LGBT politicians". Either that or I believe the whole first sentence may need to be rewritten to explain that this rule does not only apply to people, but also to people's work. --Moonriddengirl 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The LGBT literature thing is annoying; I proposed new language at WP:CATGRS. --lquilter 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rule actually applies to both people and their work. For example, a hypothetical category like "Books written by African Americans" that includes every book ever written by an African American isn't useful because many of the books will probably have little to do with the author being African American.  That's not the same as "Books about African American culture", which would at least be potentially useful.  Similarly "Films by Jewish directors" wouldn't be very useful, but "Films about Judaism" might be.


 * In that light, maybe there's a better way to word it? Something like "Likewise, people and their works should only be categorized by the person's ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on the topic at hand." That might make it clearer that the idea is that we should be ignoring race and ethnicity in categories unless it actually makes a difference. Dugwiki 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, then, it sounds like it needs at least to be revised to mention people & their works. :) One of the things that brought me here, though, was the question (mine) over whether this rule prevented subcategorizing people by ethnicity in general circumstances. For instance, Category:Chinese Americans. Is it a given that being of Chinese heritage is automatically significant to the topic at hand (being American)? If so, is there a way policy could be worded to reflect that? Or perhaps it's explicitly stated somewhere, and I've missed it. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After more reading, I begin to see the intent here. The LGBT reference is to the policy incorporated by quoting into this rule. (It occurred to me as I thought about it further that such a revision would not cover sexual preference. :)) After re-reading Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, I'm wondering if this paragraph is just rather more detailed than it needs to be...and at the same time, if it could be expanded to incorporate intersection by nationality...maybe along the lines of "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference if this has significant bearing on the primary topic. For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. In categories by nationality, ethnicity and religion may only have significant bearing if the ethnicity or religion are cultural minorities. Category:Chinese Americans may be a useful category. Category:Christian Americans is not. For more specifics on the treatment on the treatment of ethnicity, religion or sexual preference, please see Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality." I presume that Category:Chinese Americans would be acceptable, since it (and others like it) are thriving. If they're not acceptable, I believe that needs specific mention. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Intersections can be notable for many reasons. Saying "by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their careers" would indicate that it's not notable when their careers had significant bearing on their religion. Doczilla 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Persons by creative work
(I found my previous suggestion here)
 * Persons by
 * "Persons" in this context are those who create the creative works. Examples: Artisans, blacksmiths, violin makers, bakers, artists, sculptors, producers, cinematographers, jewellers, engravers, brewers, etc.
 * "Creative work" examples: a sculpture, a painting, a diagram, a blueprint, a theory of mathematics, a novel, a dictionary, an article, a blog, a web site, a cake, a carpet, a bookshelf, a bridge, a galley, a pocket watch, a bell, a computer, a video game program, a programming language, a television show, a slide show presentation, a log cabin, an igloo, etc.

Thoughts? - jc37 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think my recent futzing with the performers by performance and vice versa section obviate the need for this, though I can't think of any particular reason to not generalize the language, and use performers as an example. Doesn't seem very crucial to me, though.  Category:NASCAR sponsors will almost certainly be successfully CfD'd on the basis of P-by-P, even without the broadening I introduced to that part of WP:OCAT. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposing more extensive change to Non-notable Intersections
I think that the question of subcategorizing nationality by ethnicity and religion needs specific address and definition. It may be equally proper to explain it at Gender, race and sexuality, but I perceive it as an intersection issue--the connection of nationality with ethnicity and religion.

I'd like to propose the following rewrite to the Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" section, beginning with the unaltered quote from Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must be at least possible to create one.

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference if this has significant bearing on the primary topic. For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. In categories by nationality or citizenship, subcategories by ethnicity and religion may only have significant bearing if the ethnicity or religion are cultural minorities. Category:Chinese Americans may be useful; Category:Christian Americans is not. For more specifics on the treatment of ethnicity, religion or sexual preference, please see Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality." I'd be grateful for feedback on whether or not this change would be appropriate. Whether or not this policy is changed to address these specific issues, I think that a secondary referral to the Gender, race and sexuality policy would be beneficial. Placed above the quoted text, it may easily be lost and editors may not be aware that it has quite a bit more to say on the subject. --Moonriddengirl 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly endorse this. Too many hours and hours of arguments over these silly combo-categories. &larr;Ben B4  08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you want to delete Category:German Americans ? Kappa
 * And Category:American Christians ? Kappa 12:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_30#Category:American_Christians? Kappa 12:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I intended it to read, German Americans would qualify for keeping under the above proposal. In fact, clarifying such categories was a big part of the purpose for the proposal. :) German Americans are a cultural minority. Do you think the term will be potentially misleading? I'd be happy to look for an alternate that won't add to the confusion. As far as American Christians are concerned, thank you for linking that discussion. I was not aware of it, which was part of my motivation for asking additional responses at Village Pump. Wimstead made a good point there in noting that "The importance of religion in defining a person is not reduced either because their country is large or because they follow (a denomination of) the main religion in that country." So if practice is to subcategorize by religion, perhaps the word "religion" should be removed. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So which ones of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin do you want to delete? Kappa 13:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete any of them. I want to clarify the guidelines so that deletion discussions only happen to categories deemed appropriate by community consensus and so that categories are not unwittingly created in good faith by editors who do not understand community policy. The only category I've ever nominated for deletion was one I had created myself when another editor pointed out to me that it violated guidelines, although I also voted to delete several others created by me at the same time. I am not pushing an agenda. I'm seeking to codify existing policy, not reform. The purpose of that sentence is to help explain why Category:Asian Americans may be appropriate while Category:White Americans is not. And if turns out that Category:Caucasion Americans has been hotly and fiercely contested and survived, then I will fall back to my assertion above that "Whether or not this policy is changed to address these specific issues, I think that a secondary referral to the Gender, race and sexuality policy would be beneficial." :) --Moonriddengirl 13:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So an example of categories which would be disallowed under your proposal would be Category:Caucasian Americans which has actually been deleted, although it seems to have been created by someone who doesn't like any categorization by ethnicity in order to prove a point. Is the key part of your proposal the word "minority"? Caucasians are a majority in the US (?) so we don't need a category for them? Kappa 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) I don't know if "the key" part is the word "minority". Hmmm. My primary aim is clarifying the concept of when and how such categories should be subdivided, creating a clear explanation of why Category:Asian Americans may be appropriate while Category:White Americans may not. (It seems community consensus was that it was not, since you show that my secondary example has already been CfDed with "delete." In fact, I see in the link you provided to |the CfD for Caucasian Americans that this guideline was specifically cited as a reason the category shouldn't exist.) Editors looking at this policy in preparation for creating new categories ought to be able to get some understanding of why certain categories are likely to be contested. Editors looking at this policy in discussing CfDs ought to be able to clearly cite support for their opinions on what should be deleted or kept. In drafting up the first version of my proposal, I was proceeding under the presumption that nationality subdivisions work in a similar way to the factoring of "ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" into career. That is, that the category might be appropriate if it could be presumed to substantially differentiate an individual from individuals listed at a top category and where it could be perceived "as a distinct and unique cultural topic" in its own right. So, no, I don't think the word "minority" is key--it's just the best word I could come up with to codify what makes a subdivision of nationality by ethnicity "a distinct and unique cultural topic." There could well be--and probably is--a better approach. Again, I'm not subversively attempting to eliminate anything. It doesn't really matter to me if community consensus should be to subcategorize people by eye color. :) I just think that for the sake of creation & deletion processes, clarity is king. Whatever consensus is, it needs to be explained. --Moonriddengirl 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A large part of the point of this page is that cross-sections of categories are not generally as practical as their "parent cats". For instance, while one can make a good case for "German Americans" as a category, the same cannot be said for "German American ice hockey players".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was considering "Americans" as a parent category and "Germanic descent" as a cross section of that--a 2 point intersection. I realize that's not quite as obvious as "ice hockey players" who are "Americans" of "Germanic descent." :) Do you think there's a better place to clarify this policy? Or again, is it already spelled out quite plainly somewhere that I haven't come across? :) --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This page briefly referred to "triple intersections" as overcategorization; that was struck as too confusing and not always correct. This is the proper page, I'd say, but it's hard to draw a meaningful line; most two-point intersections seem to be practical (but there are some that aren't), and most three-point intersections appear to be overdoing it (but there are some that are good).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, do you think that my proposed (revising to address Kappa's point about religion): "In categories by nationality or citizenship, subcategories by ethnicity may only have significant bearing if the ethnicity is a cultural minorities. Category:Chinese Americans may be useful; Category:Christian Americans is not" is appropriate, or do you share concerns about the potential confusion of "cultural minority"? Do you think I should be approaching this from a different angle? :) --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories for philosophers
This policy is counter-productive insofar as the development of WP:PHILO. It is my hope that more and more philosophers have the associated content connected to them appropriately using eponymous categories. "X studies" is neither appropriate or preferable in most cases. Gregbard 12:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following sentence from the guideline pending further discussion: Philosophers, who are often studied individually and may have a body of terminology, or works associated with them such as Category:Aristotle, Category:Søren Kierkegaard or Category:Martin Heidegger are also appropriate candidates for expansion into categories. This was added today apparently in repsonse to an ongoing CFD for Category:Wittgenstein and given that a category on a philosopher is ongoing under this guideline adding it at this time strikes me as improper. Otto4711 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, CFDs on philosopher-related categories don't come up often enough for it to be a meaningful example here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it's coming up now, and I, (and probably plenty of people working on WP:PHILO) will not accept this rule. Philosophy is studied philosopher by philosopher. Having eponymous categories is the only thing that makes sense in this regard. I'm not necessarily saying that they should be treated special (this is just a bad rule in general), however, since it seems to have some reasonable application, (i.e., there are clearly reasonable, and clearly unreasonable cases where it is acceptable) there needs to be a stated exception for philosophers. The rule may have a very limited place, however, it MUST be qualified. Some people see things in black and white, and therefore are not capable of seeing the difference between the reasonable, and unreasonable cases. I am proposing to add back the statement "Philosophers, who are often studied individually and may have a body of terminology, or works associated with them such as Category:Aristotle, Category:Søren Kierkegaard or Category:Martin Heidegger are also appropriate candidates for expansion into categories."  Gregbard 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the addition of the language and the notion that philosophers ought to be looked upon as a special case. There is no reason why philosophy material can't be interlinked and categorized in exactly the same way that other material is interlinked and categorized. Otto4711 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right there should be no special exceptions ... TO GOOD POLICIES. However this policy has serious flaws fundamentally. It should be taken case by case (perhaps starting with Category:George Washington and working down from there?) There are clearly reasonable, and clearly unreasonable cases. It will take more than this policy to handle this. I think some editors get into autopilot mode and do not evaluate critically what is in front of them. This is especially true when they carve out a niche like category deletion to focus on. Otto, you still haven't answered any of Anarchia's very reasonable and open to compromise questions. We should move them here perhaps? Be well, Gregbard 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on. You are making categorisations like this one, putting the entire field of hermeneutics into Category:Martin Heidegger. This is getting things the wrong way round. You should be gathering together articles on philosophers who have contributed to hermeneutics, and then considering whether to turn that collection of links into a section in an article, a list, or a category, or maybe all three. Carcharoth 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Organize it under the name of the field of study, not under the name of the person. Otto4711 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this particular category assignment you have pointed out. However, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Incidentally, if Heidegger keeps his category, then Wittgenstein has too also. They are each the founder (well almost in MH's case) of the two prevailing views in all philosophy departments around the world. The analytic tradition was founded by LW, and the Continental, by MH. As you can see from the organization of WP:PHILO these are both MAJOR traditions in philosophy.


 * I am pretty sure, despite what has been claimed that you just have no idea who this person is.Gregbard 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Gregbard 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (reset indent) You are certainly free to believe whatever pig-ignorant thing you want. Makes me no never mind. Doesn't change the point that the categories should be named after the philosophies and not the philosophers. Otto4711 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you know all about this guy, then I am pig-ignorant about it. I do know that this will be an on-going issue because this is the most natural way for people to organize this material. This guideline just isn't that important compared to that consideration. Gregbard 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the most natural way to categorize material about a philosophy is in a category named for the philosophy. And I never claimed to know "all about" dear Ludwig. But you have repeatedly claimed that my reason for nominating his category is because I don't know who he is, and that is simply not true. Otto4711 04:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(T)he categories should be named after the philosophies and not the philosophers says (Otto4711). This quote is interesting, because it seems to me to be fundamentally and irretrievably misguided. To misquote Pauli, it's so misguided, it isn't even wrong. It assumes that one can distinguish in some way between the philosophers and their philosophies, as if each were uniquely associated one with the other. That is just not the way in which philosophy works. The category that came up for deletion - Wittgenstein - is an excellent example. His philosophy is often divided into three periods: his early work, especially the Tractatus, the middle period, and the late period characterised by the Investigations and On Certainty. Each is quite distinct, but various authors have delineated various threads running through all three. There is a large body of exegesis, mostly by his students and friends, and an even larger body of work seeking to expand his various styles of analysis. But in addition to this, there are variations that derive from his work and yet are (arguably) profoundly divergent from his philosophy - Kripke's Kripkenstein, for example. This is not a body of work that shares or develops a particular philosophy, but rather a family of related philosophies. What they share - perhaps the only thing they share - is that they derive from Wittgenstein. So that is the only sensible category for them. Otto, your idea might seem sensible, but it will not work in this case. And the fuss you have created here results from your suggestion to remove a relatively minor philosopher - if you want a real argument, suggest removing the cat for Immanuel Kant! Banno 09:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea that Kant should fall under category Kantianism or Marx under Marxism is patently absurd. Also, I'm also not sure that classification of figures into schools can be done without resorting to what would likely be considered original research. Is Dewey a Hegelian? That's a much more interesting question than if Hegel is a Hegelian but it's not place of Wikipedia to make that determination. And I'm not logged in. --69.17.124.2 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

List or categories? (Paintings)
Could the people here have a look at User:Carcharoth/Paintings depicting battle, death and war? I was wondering if this is best handled as a list or a set of categories? Carcharoth 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories for paintings by subject matter strikes me as overcategorization. The list as you have it is too broad IMHO. Otto4711 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And the solution is? Carcharoth 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, failing any constructive response, let me expand a bit on why I feel this is not overcategorization, and also why I asked the question here before creating the categories. There used to be a time when creating categories was fairly safe. Obviously incorrect categories would get deleted or renamed. Now, it feels more like there are category patrollers who look for and nominate borderline categories in the same way that non-free image patrollers look for and nominate non-free images. This can have a bit of a chilling effect on category work. There are many categories that need tidying up, and we need more people to work on that rather than just deleting categories. I feel that categorisation should be in equal part left to those who know the subject area, as well as those who are specialised in category policies and guidelines. The aim should be to educate those subject area editors who are not aware of category guidelines, and there must be a better way of doing this than nominating a category for deletion. Why not try and discuss it with the editor who created the category first, if they are still active? After hearing their reasoning, then nominate for deletion if you feel it is still not an appropriate category.
 * As for paintings by subject. Ask anyone who knows anything about paintings, and you will find that the subject or genre of a painting or artwork (when it is clear, and there are obviously some paintings that are unclear, such as Category:Surrealist paintings) is a defining characteristic of the painting. It appears that paintings haven't been categorised much on this basis, but some examples are: Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary, Category:Annunciations, Category:Botticelli Madonnas and Category:Raphael Madonnas (categorizing by both subject and artist), Category:Religious art, Category:Christian art, Category:Biblical illustrations, Category:Christian images, Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus, Category:Buddhist art and culture, Category:Buddha statues, and the list goes on and on.
 * Now, Category:Military art and Category:War art already exist, so I'm going to put some of the items on my list into those categories. The "Death" list I'm not so sure about, but I tihnk there is scope for a category of articles on paintings on the theme of death, or with the word "Death" in the title, or showing the moment of someone's death. I found Category:Personifications of death, and Category:Filmed deaths (which I'm ambivalent about, seems to be a bit strange for a category), so I'm probably going to create Category:Death-related art. I also found an article on the genre of history painting, which seems ripe for a category. Carcharoth 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well gee, sorry I didn't leave a "constructive response." I can't say as I was paying any attention to this section. I really don't care enough about it to try and make a big case about it either way. I will say that including something in a "paintings of death" or whatever category on the basis of the word "death" being included in the title is overcategorization on the basis of shared name. Otto4711 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your response wasn't that constructive, was it? Sorry if you took offense at my characterizationn of your response, but (to paraphrase your response) saying "this is overcategorisation and the list is too broad" just begs the question: What would satisfy you? Me personally, what would satisfy me is if people responding paid attention and cared about what they were commenting on. Regarding shared names, let's have a look at the current wording of the OCAT guideline:"'Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself. For example, a category for unrelated people who happen to be named 'Jones' is not useful. However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related. For example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jones family.'" The question that immediately arises is whether the title of a painting is one of its defining characteristics? My response would be that when the title relates to the theme or subject of the painting, then it is a defining characteristic of the painting. The paintings may not be directly related, but this is the same for paintings grouped by year. In essence, what I am saying is that paintings with the word "death" in the title are invariably on the theme of death. Also, have a look at Commons:Category:Art by subject. It is logical to order images of paintings by subject, so my question is, why not organise articles about paintings the same way? Carcharoth 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Title does not inherently = subject. Once you start characterizing by name (or by subject but in a way that sounds like you're catgorizing by name), you've opened a floodgate. Doczilla 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The priority of wikiprojects in deciding categorisation issues.
Here is a proposal for a fundamental principle to be followed when categorising a topic: In a dispute as to the correct way to categorise a page or subject, the considered opinion of the relevant wikiproject should have priority over the categorisation guidelines.

This states no more than that the folk who are interested in a topic are in the best position to decide how that topic should be categorised. I suggest that this, or a similar wording, be incorporated into this guideline. Banno 10:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I'd say that those who are knowledgeable in an area should have more latitude in categorizing, but WikiProjects are sometimes just enthusiasts without knowledge (though many do include experts). There is often a tension between category specialists and those with knowledge in a subject area. In reality, Wikipedia should have no experts, in subject areas or in Wikipedia specialities, like categorizing. But in reality both exist. Carcharoth 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a profound error to allow "experts" on categorisation to determine the category structure - on a par with having the librarian take sole responsibility for the curriculum. An enthusiast is more likely than a disinterested passer-bye to have a grasp of the overall structure of a topic, and to be willing to put the time into getting the categorisation right. In the end, this is the premise on which Wikipedia is founded. When there is "a tension between category specialists and those with knowledge in a subject area", the later should have right of way. Banno 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just don't think that WikiProjects are always the best way to find those with a knowledge in a subject area. Those enthusiastic about a subject area, sure, but not always those with a good grounding in knowledge. Some WikiProjects are very good in this respect, some aren't. Carcharoth 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as knowing what a logical arrangement for a topic's categorization system is, I don't think there really would be a difference between an "enthusiast" and an "expert", since both are going to be informed about the topic a lot more than outsiders to it will be. --tjstrf talk 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree, perhasp you might set out an alternative wording, to the effect that the opinion of wikiproject members should receive due consideration? We might be able to reach a compromise position. I think that something along these lines is needed, in order to avoid "top-down" (mis)management of categorisation, in which the opinion of category specialists is inflicted on an unwilling community. Banno 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that many categories fall with in he remit of multiple wikiprojects, so even conceding WP:OWNership may not solve anyb dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If a Wikiproject disagrees with the people who work on categorization policy, then clearly there is not a consensus. This happens all the time.  Case in point is category duplication.  Some wikiprojects (like Bridges and Operas) have decided to duplicate.  Many others do not.  We need to remain a big tent, and accommodate experimentation and different ways of doing things whenever possible.  That said, I don't like the wording of this proposal that tries to codify how to resolve disagreements.  Disagreements are resolved by discussing them and reaching consensus. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly disagree with this proposal. It is not practically reasonable to try to determine the "opinion" or a "Project"; even if it were, it flies in the face of WP:OWN; and frankly subject knowledge alone does not necessarily lead to good organizing (neither does categorization skills, alone; organizing information is best done by people who have both a sense of what organizing structures work, and familiarity with the subject matter). --lquilter 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Lquilter, I strongly disagree with the proposal, and support her preference for people who have both structural expertise and subject knowledge. Unfortunately, those do not always coincide in any available individual, so per WP:CONSENSUS we resolve things by discussion with the aim of learning from each other and reaching agreement. I have seen some wikiprojects which do great work on category structures, but others which get themselves onto a real mess, and I like to think of CfD as a place where categorisation specialists meet with the the subjects specialists to learn from each other and try to find a mutually agreeable solution.
 * I oppose this, agreeing with many of the arguments above. Some Wikiprojects are huge & busy, others amount to a couple of active members. I am on the whole surprised how few extra people seem to turn up when a debate is said to have been posted on a Project talk page, although other debates seem to conjure a host of editors from thin air. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - Imagine, for example, Wikiproject:Supercentenarians, or Wkiproject:Prelates. Nuff said. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Negative qualities"
From the debate here it has emerged that we don't yet cover such categories in the  guideline. Not many come up, but it is probably worth including a section. My shot at it (to go after "Unrelated subjects with shared names"):

Negative qualities
 * Example: European countries that never qualified for a major football tournament.
 * Avoid categorising by something that has not happened, or other negative qualities of the members of the category.

- comments, and other examples, please! Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, the "not" categories : ) - Well for articles, I suppose it would at least have to be shown to be "notable" for the group to have "not" done something. Though atm, I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where we would want to keep "not" categories. They would seem to be the exception, not the "rule". - jc37 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We've actually been doing this for quite a long time, see for example, Wikipedians by non-language. For some reason it comes up most in the user cats, perhaps because those are the most likely to be created by newbies... -- Prove It (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, but may I suggest a slight tweak of words to "Avoid categorising by something that has not happened, by the absence of a particular attribute or label, or other negative qualities of the members of the category." Also, another example Category:School massacres outside North America, though maybe its' not clear enough. What a pity we can't call this WP:NOT ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's all good. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, one from my to-be-written-some-day-when-I'm-bored essay on "How to create a really bad category": Category:Ministers in Margaret Thatcher's 1983 cabinet who had not divorced their wife in order to marry their secretary. Allegedly a minority of that cabinet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing American actors who are not from Detroit, American plumbers who are not from Scranton, Bipedal extraterrestrials who are not furry . . . Doczilla 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts
After seeing WP:AADD thrown around as weapons, often with those involved not actually reading the entries, I am more than hesitant to see shortcuts on this page as well.

That said, I didn't remove them all, but just the lengthier ones (those that almost duplicate the header are unnecessary), and those that could be misconstrued (WP:OC#AWARD seemed a bad idea, for example.)

I welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 12:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may have seen, I added them earlier, and the reason is that linking to them was such a nuisance without shortcuts. I was being WP:BOLD, and accept that there may turn out to be a consensus against them, though I'd be surprised.
 * On the substance of it, I think that the problem of people not reading the guidelines they cite is real, but that it is a social problem rather than a technical one, and that the more precise the link to the guidelines, the easier it is for everyone concerned to read it and learn about nuances which the every guideline contains.
 * I won't revert, but I'm disappointed that you removed the shortcuts. All that is achieved by removing the like of WP:OC is that people will link to WP:OC. What's the gain there? Why not point directly to the relevant section? (Alternatively, without the redirects, editors can continue to do what many have been doing, and linking to Overcategorization, which is simply a more cumbersome version of the same thing.)
 * As to the longer names, they are simply easier to remember an easier to copy, as well as easier to read. Why make things harder for everyone?
 * Finally, if these shortcuts are a bad idea, surely all the shortcuts in WP:NOT should also be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Smiles at WP:WAX : )
 * But that aside, are you aware that the following works:
 * WP:OC
 * Shortcuts should be just that. Shortened ways to type. That said, if they can be confused, or are less than coherent, then they probably shouldn't exist. I'd rather that we learn from the problems of the past rather than repeat them. - jc37 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great fun, citing WP:WAX. But it would have been better to have explained what distinction you saw a that makes shortcuts okay in WP:NOT and a bad idea here.
 * WP:OC works, but it is longer than WP:OC, and you have also removed the copyable direct link, which is one of the most useful aspects of those boxes.  So I have reinstated that one, and several other short links.
 * The other, longer shortcuts, are useful too for their copyability, but let's split the difference and leave them aside. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you aren't in a "smiling" mood. C'est la vie.
 * "by removing the shortcut you have also removed the copyable direct link, which is one of the most useful aspects of those boxes." - Could you clarify? As far as I can tell, we can still "direct link" to the section.
 * And I'll stand directly against "award", since it's very much inaccurate, in that it might suggest "awards", rather than "award winners". While I realise it's likely well-meant, it's also a rather bad idea. - jc37 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, over-exposure to McCandlish has shortened my fuse :(
 * Sure, without the shortcut, you can still type in the link, if you rememberer it. I usually don't remember it, so I go to the page and copy it off the browser's URL box. But it's much easier to just select and copy it from box beside the section I'm reading particularly if I have found the section I want by scrolling down, in which case the link won't actually be in the browser's url box. It just makes life easier. The irony of this is that many editors at CfD just link to WP:OC, which is the least useful form of link (which part of the guideline does that refer to?)
 * As to the award winners, any shortcut is inaccurate. WP:NOTE doesnt mean what most people think it means, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean nothing forward-looking, and so on: all these links are just easily-remembered shortcuts, which can't possibly sum up what's in the guideline. The whole point of them is to make it easier for anyone to cite the correct part of the guideline and for everyone else to be able to actually read it. Not having a handy shortcut seems to me like a form of security through obscurity: if people don't get pointed to the guideline, they won't misinterpret it, and far too often the CfD debates don't cite any guidelines or policies. Is that better? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with bhg. For a long time these policies were very hard to find - perhaps they still are. Erroneous refs are much rarer here than at AfD I think. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS the shortcuts you removed included WP:OC for "Non-defining or trivial characteristic", WP:OC for "Candidates and nominees", and WP:OC for "Published list". What's wrong with them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (de-indent) - Before delving into what should or shouldn't be included, I still think that there is a misunderstanding here of what is available already without the addition of the shortcuts.


 * You said:
 * "...it's much easier to just select and copy it from box beside the section..."


 * I'm going to presume the "box" is the new shortcut templates that you've recently added?
 * I guess what I'm asking is how is that any better than just copying the header?


 * Or to use an example: How is copying WP:OC#AWARD from a box next to the text that much easier than typing WP:OC# and copying "Award winners" from the header directly above the text? - jc37 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's easier because it's in one place, clearly signposted even to editors who aren't familiar with the linking and who may not be aware that a link can be assembled in the way you describe. Which not make it easier for people to link to the guideline to which they are referring?
 * Most guidelines address one subject, in a discursive fashion which explains all the nuances, and even when one particular section is most pertinent, the document should be read as a whole to explain the context; it would not be particularly helpful to have, for example, shortcuts to every heading in WP:BIO. However, OCAT is unusual in that it is effectively a list of mini-guidelines, each of which could stand alone. The only other similar guideline that I can think of is WP:NOT, which also has handy shortcuts.
 * Coming back to this discussion after a week's break, I'm puzzled by the objections. This is a small tweak which neither adds nor removes anything substantive from the guidelines, but makes them slightly easier for some editors to use. If you don't want to use them, that's fine, but I'm really struggling to see what the great harm is that you want a long discussion about each of them.
 * Since another editor has expressed support for the shortcuts, I am going to reinstate them. I suggest that they be left in place for a trial period of a few months, after which we can review how they have worked in practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trial period? Bad idea in this case. Then we'll have links at CfD... That's one (of several) reasons that this should be discussed first now. - jc37 12:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have two main reasons to oppose: Shortcuts of policies and guidelines (Including WP:NOT, and the "essay" WP:AADD, are regularly used inappropriately. Period. People read the shortcut, and presume what the policy or guidelines says. How many times have I run across this in an XfD discussion? Nearly every discussion.
 * But here's the deal: You know how to copy/paste the way I mentioned above. I'll WP:AGF that anyone else can as well, or at least that they can paste a full link in one way or other. There is no need for the shortcuts, just a want.
 * Now that said, shortcuts can have their value, and I don't mind buckling a little if we can agree at least on some accurate words. Shortcuts which are poor descriptors are just waiting to cause disruption. And lengthy shortcuts which are merely capitalised versions of the headers are a waste of time as well. So with that in mind, what are your suggestions? - jc37 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (de-dent) - I re-added CANTIDATES, I guess it's clear enough. And for published list, I added TOPTEN, which seems clearer than anything I could think of that included the word "LIST".
 * You already know at least some of my concerns about AWARD. And I think "NONDEFINING"; "TRIVIA"; or even "NOTABLE" are probably not good ideas.
 * See also the entries under Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. These shortcuts are often used in just such a way. See also: WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! : ) - jc37 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious WP:CATGRS conflict with WP:OVERCAT
It's become clear (see for example Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20) that WP:CATGRS is in considerable conflict with WP:OVERCAT. As OVERCAT is the broader guideline, with a lot more consensus input, I think it is important that CATGRS's editors either moderate that document to conflict less with OVERCAT, or work to achieve consensus here that OVERCAT should be moderated to allow for the blanket exceptions that CATGRS insists upon ("at all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?", which would allow a category to be created for nearly anything, since someone with enough time to work on it can probably write such an article about virtually any topic, from billiard balls to cat hair). As the closer's comments at the above-cited CfD indicate, the actual consensus at CfD leans strongly toward removal of "Female X" and "Male X" categories, where there isn't something sufficiently unusual about the intersection to warrant the category's existence, and even this exception is strongly questioned; meanwhile CATGRS is directly encouraging the creation of every possible category of this sort. We have a major conflict on our hands here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Frankly I disagreed with the closer's extra commentary, so I don't think that it, itself, has sufficient "consensus" to be cited in support of your point. (2) If you want to try to sound quantitative (e.g., "actual consensus leans strongly toward") then you should adduce evidence to support your point. For instance, "over the past year, 20 such categories have come up for discussion; 19 of them have been deleted" -- that would sound like consensus trending in a particular direction. On the other hand if, as I suspect, we have a split that is more like 2:1, then I would hardly call that "consensus". Indeed, it is just what I would expect from a process that is source-specific, as WP:CATGRS is. --Lquilter (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification: I didn't say that there was as yet consensus. (I seem to recall closing the discussion itself as "no consensus"...) What I said was that this has been controversial, and that such categorisation was "questionable". In other words, pleasee climb down from the high horses, step back from the cliff's edge, and let's discuss. Attacking each other or each other's motives doesn't get this any closer to consensus, if anything it's pushing people further apart. - jc37 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * jc37: My comments here were all addressed to SMcCandlish's comment here, not to your closure there. I didn't, here, critique your closure; just SMcCandlish's attempt to use jc37's extra commentary in the closure as reflecting closure. (In law, we call extra commentary "dicta"; that was actually the concept that I was coming from, and I'm sorry I didn't make that point explicit. Dicta can be supported or unsupported or whatever, because it's not actually the part of the decision that makes a difference. So basically I was saying that while I disagreed with your additional commentary, it was dicta, so it didn't matter if I disagreed and SM loved it -- it was dicta & didn't reflect consensus but your opinion.) ... I also didn't say that was, or wasn't, consensus; again, I was just talking about SMcCandlish's attempt to color CFD as consensus. --Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with the closure of that CfD either, but if there is to be a review of that closure, it should be at DRV rather than here.
 * McCandlish's claims that "the actual consensus at CfD leans strongly toward removal of "Female X" and "Male X" categories, where there isn't something sufficiently unusual about the intersection to warrant the category's existence" is bizarre. Of course there is agreement that such categories should exist only in exceptional cases: the question is which ones, and that is why we have WP:CATGRS to guide those decisions.
 * Nor is it in any way true to say that "CATGRS is directly encouraging the creation of every possible category of this sort". Only a tiny minority of primary occupational categs have gendered subcats, and there is no great movement to change that. It would be interesting to do some analyses, but on the basis of my experience of near-constant participation in CfD over the last 18 months, I have seen most (but not all) gendered categories survive CfD, but not many new gendered category trees being created.
 * However, the main issue here is McCandlish's attempt to claim that WP:CATGRS somehow undermines WP:OCAT, and a few minutes checking shows that to be untrue.
 * WP:CATGRS in this revision dated 1 January 2006, included the text "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?".
 * On the other hand, WP:OCAT was only created 11 months later, in this edit on 23 November 2006.
 * The next bit is even more interesting. OCAT's first reference to gender is in this dit, on 24 November 2006, by SMcCandlish. Not only does it not mention the long-established WP:CATGRS, it doesn't mention in the edit summary the addition of a new section.  A link to WP:CATGRS was added later the same day by User:Sam. The link to CATGRS was still there when  the document became a formal guideline on 15 December 2006. The guideline tag was removed, the renistated with a disputed tag, and that was removed on 21 December 2006, reinstated in the next edit, but CATGRS remained. Disputed was removed again on 22 December.
 * I have read every edit to the guideline, and the link to WP:CATGRS has remained there ver since.
 * Therefafter, the text appears largely unchanged, until this edit, when SMcCandlish changed the text from "it must be at least possible to create one" [i.e. a head article], replacing possible with "reasonable" ... and there making WP:OCAT tighter than WP:CATGRS.
 * So we come to the bottom line. McCandlish is partly right that "that WP:CATGRS is in considerable conflict with WP:OVERCAT", though only partly. And what conflict there is between the two guidelines exists solely because of a change which he himself made to WP:OCAT, without any discussion on the talk page. Nice work, eh?
 * So let's just revert McCandlish's unilateral change to OCAT, and restore it to conformity with CATGRS, which stood up quite well to tests in all sorts of fields over the last two years. Far from "encouraging" the creation of such categories, it has recently led to the deletion of several ethnicity-based categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, most guidelines go through periods of being disputed before they settle down, so highlighting the early disputes for WP:OCAT should be balanced by looking at the early history of WP:CATGRS. The guideline tag was only added with this edit in August 2006, so they are really about the same wiki-age in terms of being guidelines. A couple of months doesn't make that much difference. Other than that, I agree with the broad thrust of your analysis, but would assume good faith with McCandlish's edits. The important thing is to get the guidelines consistent and reflecting actual practice, not what one "side" or other wants to see happen. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the changes to OCAT were in good faith, but I'm less persauded about the subsequent attempt to leverage the (small) difference.
 * Anyway, I agree that the thing to do is to get the guidelines to reflect actual practice. I suggest that the starting point for that should be an analysis of CFDs where CATGRS has been relevant.
 * For what it's worth my quick summary of the state of play over the last year is that:
 * a) there is a broad consensus for the test of "can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping", but that it is applied with rigour, often (though not always) in conjunction with a "major cultural importance" test, applied with varying degrees of rigour.
 * b) a further test is often applied to religious intersections, of whether the people categorised were doing the thing categorised in a manner particular to their religion (e.g. Jewish scientist or mathematicians)
 * Some editors have a visceral dislike of any such intersection, which can lead to very heated debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards
I can see not adding every award category to an article, say on Mother Theresa. But for minor people, I see no reason not to have their awards in categories, it ties them to similar people, and is an excellent navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But then there'd be debates about who's minor enough to warrant this. The articles for the specific awards allow for this type of navigation. –Pomte 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)