Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Consolidated discussions on Eponymous categories

'This is a consolidation and copy of discussions relevant to the "eponymous" categories. All conversations are also archived in the chronological talk archives. Please note that this archive does not include all comments relating to eponymous, but only those discussion threads that were primarily dedicated to eponymous categories. The topic may come up in broader threads as well.'

It was last copied 2013/05/13 from archives 1 - 10.

Eponymous categories
Earlier I nominated Category:Joey (TV series) for deletion as an unnecessary eponymous category. Tim! argued that the WP:NOT Wikipedia is not paper policy meant that there is no reason to limit the number of eponymous categories.

I realized that eponymous categories in general might be a good topic of discussion on this talk page. I think most of us would agree that it would be silly for most articles to have their own category (eg. Category:Dandenong Southern Bypass, Category:Ken Duken, a category named after every film and tv show and stage show and book, etc.). At the same time, there are some exceptions involving articles that are particularly notable and/or have articles that span multiple types of topics or genres (eg Category:James Bond, which covers multiple movies, books, actors and other items from different areas of knowledge.)

So in general, it's a bad idea for most articles to have their own unique eponymous category, but under what circumstances should exceptions be made? And would this be something useful to outline in this guideline? Dugwiki 20:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Feel free to give your feedback on the Category:Joey (TV series) cfd I mentioned.  In that case, the category has only one article and one subcategory for episodes, and the episode subcategory is already categorized under Category:Episodes by television series so doesn't need another unique parent.  On top of that, anybody seeking articles related to Joey can simply visit the main article and click on the appropriate link; there is no perceivable need to visit "Category:Joey" when you can simply go to "Joey" instead. Dugwiki 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My main criteria for categories is "are they useful and is the topic studied". So for an eponymous categories, there should be books about the topic, or academic courses taught for them to be "studied".  The "utility" part implies that the category should have some utility that is not found elsewhere.  The measure for this, in my way of thinking is "are all the articles related to this topic already cross linked to the eponymous article?" and if they are not "Can a short list of 'See also' entries be added to the article instead of this category?".  The other consideration is "Are there articles that are only belong in the eponymous category and nowhere else?".  So if the topic is studied, there's a reasonable number of articles, that might be difficult to find from the eponymous article, and/or there are orphans that have no other category to reside in, keep the category. -- Samuel Wantman 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To follow up, the result of the cfd for Category:Joey (TV series) was keep (although as a technical matter I think the admin marked it incorrectly - it probably was "no consensus" since I think half the people commenting supported deletion. The result would be the same though.) Given that this category only currently has two items, and that the series isn't any more notable than any other network TV series, I'm wondering which way we're supposed to be categorizing TV shows? Should every TV show with more than one related article have its own category? Or should we be deleting eponymous TV show categories that only have a few articles and that can be safely removed without orphaning articles in the category system?

I also posted this question at WikiProject Television, since all these categories fall under that project. What I'm looking for is guidance on whether I should be creating more eponymous categories for TV shows that don't already have one, or cfd-ing those categories when they appear to be unnecessary. Right now there is an inconsistency in the creation of eponymous categories, both within TV shows and also between TV shows and Films and Books.

Any comments and insight are appreciated, thanks. Dugwiki 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Eek! Sorry I missed this one. I would have strongly advocated "delete". I've requested the closing admin to change it to "no consensus" and I'd support more "cfd-ing" of these categories.  I think they frustrate users when they entice you away from an article with numerous links to a category with few.  They have negative utility. -- Samuel Wantman 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little late to this discussion, but I have been addressing the question of eponymous television companies on the cfd page. My original post had to do with re-categorisation, but it ended up touching on whether there should even be separate categories for a producer and his/her production company. It came up in connection with Quinn Martin, but applies to people like Merv Griffen, Reg Grundy, etc. I am generally in favor of having an article for the individual and an article for the corporate entity, although in some instances one or the other may be short. Thoughts?--Vbd 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories based on names
May I suggest a new entry: Categories based on names. It seems like this is done frequently, but it often fails to work well. Take, for example, the WP:CFD nominations of Category:North, Category:South, Category:East, and Category:West, which discuss articles with one of these words (or variants on these words) in their name. This is also not the first instance where this has happened; many other inappropriate categories based on the surnames of unrelated people or based on the names of unrelated places have been created in the past. (My personal favorite was Churches named for St. Dunstan.) An exception should be made when the category refers to articles that are directly related (such as Category:Brahe).

What do other people think? Should I draft a guideline on this? Dr. Submillimeter 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of some interest might be Categories for deletion/Names, a forgotten subpage which nonetheless seems to have been consistently upheld (most recently in the outcome of the bitter Chinese-surname CfD, which I dearly wish someone else had started). Although these are covered by the "trivial characteristic" heading, they come up often enough (and their triviality is contested frequently enough) that a separate heading would not be amiss. -- Visviva 11:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added, please copyed.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This came up quite recently, see US State Related Ships. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That one was based mostly on WP:ILIKEIT arguments, or so it seems.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous celebrity category observation
Recently we had a bunch of cfds for eponymous categories about celebrities, such as Category:William Shatner and Category:Hilary Duff. For the most part, I agree that these categories normally aren't necessary as the main article serves as a superior navigational hub to find articles about the person. A reader who wants to know about books or films with William Shatner will almost certainly visit his main article first. Therefore most of the time these categories aren't needed

However, in reviewing these cfds it occured to me that one main exception to that rule of thumb is when someone's main article is split into several tightly related subarticles. In a case like that it might be that deleting the eponymous category would leave those subarticles orphaned in the category system. Since I found myself making this same comment repeatedly on cfd, I thought I'd also mention it here as a general comment on eponymous categories.

I'm not sure if we should include something about eponymous celebrity categories here, but I thought it might be worthwhile to mention this exception as a topic of discussion. What do you guys generally think about eponymous categories for celebs and making exceptions for when there are tightly related subarticles? Dugwiki 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in general agreement. I don't think we have to distinguish between celebrities and any other type of eponymous category.  All eponymous categories are superfluous unless they can meet the following criteria:
 * IS IT NEEDED? There are articles or categories that would not belong in any other category such as sub-articles that have no other home.
 * DOES IT ADD UTILITY? There are articles that are not linked to from the eponymous article, and there are enough of them that listing them would clutter up the article by adding links to the "See also" section or elsewhere. The category should have the potential to hold a reasonable number of articles and categories (over 15?)
 * IS IT PRACTICAL? The category follows categorization guidelines and does not otherwise disrupt the categorization system.
 * --Samuel Wantman


 * Should any of the articles have been merged? Xiner (talk, email) 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in thorough agreement. As an example see Jan Smuts, and its associated category, Category:Jan Smuts - recently discussed above. The life of Smuts is dealt with in general terms within Jan Smuts, with deeper exploration taking place in the, at the last count, five sub-articles. As far as general categorisation goes the main article has the full complement of appropriate categories. This leaves the question of how the sub articles should be treated. Should they be categorised in the same way? Should we have both Jan Smuts and Early life of Jan Smuts categorised under Category:Prime Ministers of South Africa? As a matter of common sense, the answer must surely be no. As a result each of the detailed sub-articles find themselves contained within an eponymous category. The only alternative to this is to have sub-articles uncategorised, something which to my mind is at odds with the overarching intent of the category system.

X damr talk 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I decided to be a little WP:BOLD and added a section to the guideline talking about eponymous categories for celebrities. I tried to base it on the comments above and on comments from the recent round of cfds for eponymous categories.  I also tried to write the section as a general rule of thumb, not a hard and fast prohibition, and also explained the exception exemplified above by Jan Smuts of directly related subarticles.


 * Obviously please feel free to revert my change or make alterations if it doesn't sound appropriate or if you think the wording can be improved. :Dugwiki 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks a decent working policy as it stands. My particular manta when approaching these categories has been to look for a substantial number of directly relevant articles/sub-categories.  Perhaps something could be done with this quantitative definition?


 * X damr talk 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I intentionally left out a quantitative number of articles or subcategories since the raw number isn't actually what would be important. Rather, what's important is how the typical reader searches for the information in the category.  So it's not so much whether a category has 23 vs 46 articles, for example, but whether or not the category is something readers would prefer to use over just using the main article for navigating the same links.


 * Now it is true that the number of articles and subcategories is an indirect factor. As the size of a category grows, it becomes more likely that you can't comfortably index all the associated links within the main article.  So it's certainly possible that for people with an extremely large number of articles or subcategories you might have trouble getting all those links into a nice compact form to fit in the main article.  In those cases, you might have to create a list article as a subarticle, which means you'll now have a main article divided into directly related subarticles.  When that happens, you have a situation where an eponymous category to hold those subarticles might be handy.


 * Therefore rather than focus on a specific number of articles or subcategories, I think it's better to look at whether the main article can comfortably hold all the links involved and whether the main article is split into subarticles that are all linked together. Dugwiki 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really thinking of a definite figure, just a 'substantial' number. This judgement would subtly vary according to the topic etc.


 * X damr talk 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous categories (once more)
I've been reading Overcategorization and noting with satisfaction that many inappropriate eponymous categories have been deleted. One thing I'm not sure about, with the exceptions bit, is the example of the biographical daughter articles in Category:Jan Smuts. Surely the series of biographical articles are best grouped using an article series box, which already exists? Namely, Template:JanSmutsSegments. Smuts' also lost his categories, but that's a separate issue I'll deal with elsewhere. Carcharoth 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction. Smuts hadn't lost any categories. It was the daughter articles, which I've now added to Category:History of South Africa and similar ones. Carcharoth 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted addition to the eponymous people exceptions
FYI I reverted a change by Kingboyk today to the eponymous categories section. He tried to add the following subsection -

(A second exception to the rule against eponymous categories is) where Wikipedia's coverage of the person in question needs to be split into multiple subcategories in order to fit into the existing categorisation system. The main examples of this are musicians and writers, who generally have subcategories for their works. For example, John Lennon was notable both as an author and as a musician. Category:John Lennon contains Category:Books by John Lennon, which is a subcategory of Category:Books by author; Category:John Lennon albums, which is a subcat of Category:Albums by artist; and Category:John Lennon songs, which is a subcat of Category:Songs by artist.

That, however, is not actually an exception to the rule. The reason is because all the subcategories he mentioned can easily be accessed from John Lennon's main article, meaning that John Lennon's article serves as the main navigational hub to peruse both his books and his albums. The fact that he authored both books and albums is therefore not in itself a reason to create an eponymous category for the man. Dugwiki 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. John Lennon is not an album. --kingboyk 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say John Lennon is an album. I said that Category:John Lennon albums and the list of John Lennon albums are easilly accessible from John Lennon's article. You don't need the Category:John Lennon for that purpose. Dugwiki 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That's not to say Category:John Lennon doesn't fit the main exception. It has within it articles directly related to John Lennon that aren't easily categorized elsewhere, such as John Lennon Museum, List of John Lennon tributes and others. So this does fit the exception already listed. Dugwiki 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to Kingboy's additional exception, there is not really consensus for such a broad prohibition on eponymous categories. Dug's continually stated argument about articles being a navigational hub are based on his own browsing preferences and should not be foisted on the rest of the community, as not all readers use wikipedia in the same way that he does. Tim! 22:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in the way you think these eponymous categories are being used that is not being taken into account. -- Sam uel Wan t man 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And to reply, I'm not "foisting" anything on the community. All I do is explain how I logically think things normally work, and other editors are free to agree or disagree with my assessments.  In this particular case, I saw a change to the guideline that hadn't been previously discussed here. So I reverted the undiscussed change and also explained some reasons why it seemed like a questionable alteration to the article.  I'm not "foisting" my opinion on anyone, though - I'm just maintaining the status quo in the document pending discussion.  If it turns out that editorial consensus wants that change, then so be it. But it hadn't even been discussed one way or another at the time I reverted it, and so far from the above and below comments it sounds like the reversion may end up sticking. Dugwiki 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dugwiki. It usually isn't necessary to create extra layers of categorization like this. To counter with "John Lennon is not an album" is about as useful as saying "Yoko Ono is not a John Lennon".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still problematic
I was recently pointed to Margaret Atwood, which seems to suffer from having too many categories. Apart from a few standard categories and some award cats, here we see the following:
 * She is from Essex, and from Ottawa, and from Simcoe, and from Toronto as well (she's also alumna from two different places, but that makes more sense)
 * She's a novelist. And a woman. And a writer. And a poet. And a science fiction writer. And a short story writer. And from Ontario. And, guess what, a writer. And a woman. And a short story writer. And a woman. And also, a novelist.

She's also a literary critic twice and a feminist twice, but the above overdose of permutations of "some kind of writer" and "something else" is extremely redundant. Imho.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of this might be a case of necessary redundancy as some of the subcategories you mentioned are intended to break up otherwise very large categories. However, some of the categories listed on her article sound like they could probably be removed from the article as totally redundant or even deleted in cfd.  Specifically
 * Category:Canada's Walk of Fame appears to be an unnecessary award winner category. I would recommend nominating for deletion and listifying.
 * Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada is likewise an award winner category. This one might also qualify for possible listifying/deletion.
 * Category:Companions of the Order of Canada - another award category
 * Category:Booker Prize winners - another award category
 * Category:Pantheists can be safely removed from the article. The article appears to make absolutely no mention of her being a Pantheist. So even if she is one, it's apparently not verified within the article. (I went ahead and removed this category from the article myself.)
 * Do we need to break down Category:Women writers by both nationality and genre? I understand that Women writers is a large category, but is it actually necessary to subdivide it in multiple ways?  Seems to me you could do one or the other but not both and still accomplish the goal of breaking up the category. I might recommend either merging all the by-genre categories of Women Writers and leaving by-nationality in place, or vice versa.  (That's assuming we keep Category:Women writers in place, which some people want to delete entirely.) Dugwiki 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I nominated Category:Authors selected for Canada Reads for deletion, which did contain Margaret Atwood.


 * Category:Booker Prize winners may receive stiff opposition to deletion, since it is a notable literary award that is the British Commonwealth's equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. If the Booker Prize category is deleted, then all other literary award categories should probably be deleted as well, including Category:Pulitzer Prize winners.  (This might not be a bad thing, but it might be really hard to get support for this.  I myself do not know how I would vote.)


 * Civil award categories awarded by countries (such as the Order of Canada) have not been discussed at WP:CFD at all, so a nomination of Category:Companions of the Order of Canada for deletion by itself could fail simply because it singles out Canada. However, it may be appropriate to nominate a series of civil award categories from multiple countries (including Category:Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients and multiple British knighthood categories) to discuss their merits.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, Doc. Note that I was only indicating these categories might be things worth reviewing for deletion because they fall under the general scheme of "categorizing by awards won". It's certainly possible that some or all of them have legitimate purposes.  Dugwiki 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the categorisation of people is becoming somewhat of an obsession for some people. I see a recent featured article, the best of what Wikipedia has to offer, Charles Darwin is in 24 categories — including a dreaded eponymous category! — and nary a twitter in its FAC. Tim! 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering FAC deals with article writing style and proper citation I'm not surprised categorization isn't mentioned one way or another. Categorization is about article indexing, not article style per se. Dugwiki 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. The "dreaded eponymous" category in Charles Darwin appears to be a legitimate exception to the OCAT rule because it includes a number of subarticles directly related to Darwin that aren't easily categorized elsewhere.  Thus the eponymous category is probably a needed supplement to the main article for navigation in this case. Dugwiki 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I also notice that a couple of the categories in Darwin's article probably aren't needed.  For example, he's under both Category:English scientists and its subcategories Category:English geologists and Category:English naturalists, meaning that the "scientist" category should be removed (articles normally aren't supposed to be in both a category and its subcategories if the subcategories are a subdivision scheme.)  Also, there is the "family tree" category Category:Darwin — Wedgwood family which seems questionable (most family tree categories are deleted in favor of their associated list articles, in this case Darwin — Wedgwood family).  I am removing the scientist category, and might recommend nominating the family tree category for deletion. Dugwiki 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case Darwin — Wedgwood family is (at least at the top) a well-developed list, with extensive summary-style and annotations for the major members of the family. What the article doesn't provide is a pure index list, which is what the category provides. At long as the category page makes clear that it is only an index of the family, it is easier to use the category as a pure list, rather than the article. Carcharoth 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no problem with the article. I'm not so sure the category is actually needed for navigation, but that's a subject for editors to discuss if the category came up at CFD.  Keep in mind also the potential problems of category explosion with allowing family trees as categories for most notable individuals.  Go back far enough on a family tree and you'll have multiple intersections of trees from different notable ancestors.  Dugwiki 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Burn family tree categories. Carcharoth 14:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to eponymous people categories
I have added the following to this section. I believe it reasonably reflects consensus as expressed in the results of numerous CFDs addressing each of the category types:
 * This guideline should also be considered for categories named after families, groups, television series, films and film series and books. Examples: Sports broadcasting families, ZZ Top, American Dad!, Honey I... films. Otto4711 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Too broad. Let's keep this to simply people. We can discuss the other parts on this page, if wanted. (Compare to the several performers by performance discussions.) - jc37 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the proposed addition. The reasoning behind why eponymous categories should be avoided for individual people also presumably would apply equally well to groups (eg musical groups), television series and individual films.  Basically if a main article serves sufficiently well as a navigational hub to peruse article links about the topic then you don't also need in addition to that an eponymous category that serves the same purpose. Also I believe that this same reasoning has been applied successfully to articles that aren't just about individual people in cfds over the last couple of months as noted by Otto above.  So despite JC's somewhat vague comment above, there might actually be some consensus for this already in related cfd discussions. Of course, that's just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree (and I'd be curious if JC could expand more specifically on why he thinks the proposal is "too broad". What categories would be disallowed by the addition that should be allowed?) Dugwiki 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this addition does not reflect wide-spread consensus of the wikipedia community. Otto4711 has cherry-picked a few results of small categories which were deleted.

This whole guideline is suffering from extreme instruction creep already. It is supposed to reflect the results of CFD, not set the agenda for future nominations. We started out with a few well defined and uncontroversial things like Category:Fictional characters who love to shop. Now we are heading into much more uncertain territory, starting with performance by performer which was highly controversial and now eponymous categories. The results of these categories are quite varied, and are often commented on by a small number of people. To extrapolate this to suggest that all categories named after families, groups, television series, films and film series is a big mistake. Tim! 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man. Otto is correctly noting that certain classes of categories have a pattern of getting deleted through community debate. If you disagree with that I suggest you list those categories at WP:DRV.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you closed this one as keep. There are plenty of other counter-examples to Otto's Tim! 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Tim, that's why it's a guideline and not a policy. There is nothing that suggests that this is an iron-clad Rule That Must Be Obeyed. All that the addition is that the same guideline that should be thought about for categories named for people should also be thought about for categories named after things like TV shows. It's hard to understand how a reasonable person can disagree with advice to think about something. Otto4711 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I think you're mischaracterising this page, and how a guideline should be interpreted. WP:IAR is policy, but one that should be used only when appropriate, and should not be cited as an "excuse" for a multitude of exceptions. We agreed above that this page is to be a reflection of WP:CFD, not as a place to "push an agenda". So if I take your response at face value, then your additions to the page aren't appropriate at this time. - jc37 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "agenda" it is that you think I'm trying to "push" here nor do I understand what WP:IAR has to do with anything as no one else seems to have mentioned it. It seems pretty obvious to me that the categories of the type that I mentioned are being deleted with pretty solid frequency in one CFD after another, despite the one or two odd exceptions. Since this is a guideline and not a policy, my addition based on my observations seemed reasonable. Honestly, it doesn't really make any difference to me if it's included or not since the community is deleting the categories as they come up so if the addition is so controversial that it engenders rumblings of "agenda-pushing" then y'all can continue the discussion without me. Otto4711 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, time to backup a bit. I was responding to you and User:Tim! at the same time, and apparently my intent was confused due to that. My apologies. I was reiterating about the agreement above, not specifically suggesting that you were "agenda-pushing". I mentioned this specifically since that has been User:Tim!'s concern about this page in the past. The comment about WP:IAR was in response to how you were characterising how a guideline should be interpreted. But in re-reading your comment, perhaps I misunderstood. Would you like to clarify? - jc37 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the concerns about "series" categories is related to size, so maybe it would be appropriate to revisit the "small with no potential for growth" item, rather than add to the eponymous item. I think the pattern of deletion Radiant! is seeing is more to do with size than eponymity (please feel free to disagree here Radiant!). Tim! 10:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true that the larger a category the more likely it is that you can't reasonably use the main article for navigating subarticles on the topic. However size in and of itself isn't actually the question.  For example, you still shouldn't create an additional eponymous category for an author who has written a large number of books if all those books are already going to be in his list of works and in his subcategory of "Books by author".  Similarly you don't need an eponymous category for a director who has a large number of films to his credits since his film list will almost certainly appear in the article anyway.  But generally speaking very small eponymous categories are likely to be deleted since it isn't hard to fit a small number of links within the main article. Dugwiki 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - given that the number of deletions of eponymous categories for TV series, bands and families has now passed the 100 mark if not the 200 mark, is it safe yet to add TV series, bands and families to this section? Note that adding this would not be mandating deletion but would simply be saying that this standard should be considered. The community has spoken pretty loudly and consistently here and adding those items would at this point be reflecting consensus. Otto4711 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that change. TV series, bands, films, people, video games are all pretty much handled the same way now when it comes to having an eponymous category. Most of them don't need one, and the few exceptions are for those that have a particularly large or varied number of associated articles that aren't easily navigated from the main article.  Dugwiki 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories for people comment/questions
I recently came across Category:Avril Lavigne, and it has several biography articles in it. Some for her bandmates, and one for a person she is dating. Is this necessary? The article states things such as relationships, so why categorize it? Imagine if Avril had many famous relatives: they would just be jammed into her category as well. This seems like a case of overcategorization, but I wasn't sure. If this is indeed overcategorization, many people categories probably need to be looked at and cleaned up (as I'm sure the Avril category isn't the only one like this). RobJ1981 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and very many of the subcategories of Category:Categories named after people (itself a bizarre category: why such self-reflexivity?) seem to violate Overcategorization. I've just nominated one of these subcategories for deletion: see my Gabriel Garcia Marquez proposal.  Though if my previous experience is a guide, I suspect I'll be told I should have proposed deleting the entire super-category, or at least to have proposed multiple deletions at one time.  (See this example and this one of being told such things.)  So I thought I'd at least raise the issue here.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The parent category Category:Categories named after people is fine because there are some exceptions to the general rule against eponymous categories. So this parent is useful for housing the ones that are ok.  Therefore just keep nominating the specific ones that don't look ok for deletion and don't worry about the parent or doing an umbrella nomination. Dugwiki 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, Dugwiki. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:00, 31 May 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)

Eponymous musician categories
I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians on the need for such categories for musicians and musical groups based on WP:OC. I'm searching for some kind of standard or consensus on the subject, so if you have any opinion on the matter, please follow the link to the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous categories
A very recent change to section Overcategorization added without discussion:

I do not believe this is correct. Such a change would contribute to massive pollution of CfD, dealing with millions of these existing categories. Bad idea. Bad process.

This is a fairly common and obvious scheme to consolidate categories, and keep things manageable. Once there are 2 or 3 articles on a topic, it's much better to put them into 1 eponymous category, and maintain it as a subcategory of the relevant topics. Moreover, it violates the assumptions of the section, that there be no potential for growth. Current TV series come to mind. One season wonders might have no eponymous category, but once there are 2 seasons (main article and 2 season "list of episodes" articles, there SHOULD be a category. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed replacement: --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two articles? Once there are two articles about a topic, it should be maintained in a category? That's pretty small and would result in a flood of thousands of categories that only contain "[TV SHOW]" and "[LIST OF TV SHOW EPISODES]"--how would that be helpful in navigation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you have consensus to remove the bit about being part of a scheme, none of this is going to work. Because people will always come around and say that "Categories named after American television series" is a scheme, and that such epo categories should be allowed.  --Kbdank71 19:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the present version. I have followed cfd closely for some years and the only editor who has confused 'Categories named after' with 'part of an established scheme' is User:William Allen Simpson. There has been for many years a presumption against eponymous categories, and particularly against sprawling eponymous categories with no clear inclusion criteria. As I have observed many times, Category:Categories named after American television series is a 'category of categories' and as such is quite different from (say) Category:Albums by artist, an established sub-categorisation scheme. Occuli (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as is We do not want eponymous categories. They are useful for topics like Abraham Lincoln, but in general it is best to avoid putting categories in categories with the same names.  Pop musicians tend to be in so many categories as it is, having every one in a category with the name of the article is a really bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)