This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Eponymous categories - Reconsidering the guideline WP:OC#Eponymous
The basic logic of this guideline is that, beecause there are links in the related articles within a biography article, that navigation to these articles through a category would be redundant. That standard is selectively applied to biographical categories and not any others and I'm not convinced that biography articles are more or less likely to be well linked than a company one or any other. In practice, I think the discussion of these categories devolve into Wikipedia:Idontlikeit where popular culture eponymous categories are frowned upon but the eponymous categories for more respectable historical figures are not nominated for deletion.
Based on how often these come up, I was wondering aloud if this guideline still had consensus. Do other people have misgivings about this guideline or am off on my own here?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
On first impression I'd say WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is still pertinent. Maybe it would help if some links were provided to such eponymous categories which are thought of as useful, but yet deleted for this reason (link to CfD discussions then), or to useful cats that wouldn't stand if WP:OC#EPONYMOUS were applied strictly, or to cats (like on companies or organizations) that wouldn't fall under WP:OC#EPONYMOUS strictly speaking but have comparable problems. Tx.
On the other hand I don't see the BLP connection. Category:Barack Obama makes sense imho. Category:Michelle Obama doesn't. Similar, Category:Mel Gibson. That's not a BLP issue. Also WP:BLPCAT (part of the BLP policy) has "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (...etc)" which already covers this. If there is a problem here I don't see, please provide examples too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This is yet another guideline that gives no reason why the guideline is there in the first place. We really need to stop doing this. The underlying reasons appear to be:
(a) Eponymous categories should only exist where the person/group is the subject of significant scholarship in their own right, and that scholarship is well represented in Wikipedia content
(b) Lists of works by a group or person should not be the basis for an eponymous category and should always be in categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie
(c) Content in which the person/group is neither the primary topic nor a highly defining aspect of the content should not be within an eponymous category.
(As a result...) These three requirements for an eponymous category mean very few people can potentially have one.
The guideline should be rewritten to include the above points. We should remove the irrelevant discussions of article links, summary style and the confusing examples of Shakespeare and Tolkein (which suggests we should use "scholarship on X" instead of eponymous cats, but then says, without reason, "and we have eponymous cats on those too!". SFB09:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Sillyfolkboy's guidelines are lot more understandable and wouldn't radically impact what we categories we include. I especially like C) because many fans seem to dump in any category which references a celebrity. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Afaics the underlying reasons are in the lede of the guideline:
Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter".
To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided. Based on existing guidelines and previous precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such categories, if created, are likely to be deleted.
I would take a "don't fix what isn't broken" attitude to this. So unless CfD discussions are made particularily difficult because of the vagueness in this guidance I see no reason for a fundamental rewrite. That there are two considerations, both valid, that go in different directions is in itself not a problem imho. Maybe examples could be a bit updated, that's all I see for improvements to this section of the guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So you don't think there a problem with having a guideline that does not explain why that guideline is needed? SFB11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
? I said the why is explained in the lead paragraphs, and copied these to this talk page. WP:CfD troubles is part of that why (end of second paragraph), but no changes in that part of the why have been demonstrated thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I might mean something different by "explained". "The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories). If these links are not present, then the links should be added before proposing such a category for deletion" does provide an explanation. But it's a circular explanation: eponymous articles don't need categories because all the articles are linked in the article so a category is redundant; if they aren't all in the article, add them so that a category will be redundant.
But we have multiple forms of navigation everywhere: links in articles, categories, templates. Why is this higher standard being applied only on categories where the lead article would be a biography? (I guessed there might be an unspoken BLP concern but that appears not to be the case.) I'm not being rhetorical to make a point here, I really want to know: Why are overlapping forms of navigation bad for biography articles but cool for everything else? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Re.
The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories). If these links are not present, then the links should be added before proposing such a category for deletion
I read that as a procedure, not an explanation. It is certainly no answer to the question why. It just says: *if* the eponymous category has to be deleted *then* first *proceed* with inserting all the links in the corresponding article then *afterwards* go with the cat to CfD.
BTW I see no answer to the why question in SFB's (a)-(b)-(c)-(As a result...) steps above either.
So again, the lede gives the why, the WP:OC#EPONYMOUS section gives the procedure for this set of categories. Unless examples (like CfD discussions gone besirk or categories protected by this against common sense or categories deleted by this against common sense) can be given I fail to see a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead doesn't explain why a personal eponymous category is specifically more of a bad idea than a non-eponymous one. That is what this section needs to explain. As it stands, it is just assumed that the reasons for this difference are obvious. In comparison, the section on "People associated with" clearly delineates the reason for previous consensus on the issue. The summarised point in the lead, "overcategorisation causes distracting clutter", isn't explanation enough. If explanation for the sub-sections isn't required then we could just reduce this guideline to the lead and a twenty-point list of the given bad ideas. SFB19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
These guidelines are meant to reflect the consensus from the history of CFD discussions. The idea is that originally, the discussions dictated the content of the guidelines and not vice versa. So if we want to isolate some reasons for the guideline, we need to go back and examine the reasons provided in the discussions that led to the guideline being formed. There have been probably hundreds of discussions about this type of category, so there is a lot to look at. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point Good Ol'factory. This guideline probably had consensus because, before it was in place, there must have been problems with eponymous categories. If we open this gate, maybe the barbarians may storm back in. Since I raised the issue, let me look in the histories and see if I can find some background.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The Concern Francis Schonken, I didn't really answer your question about what is broken. I don't think this guideline causes problem at the Categories for Discussion level; indeed these are normally dispensed with in speedy nominations and those with full conversations rarely survive. My concern is that this guideline is removing categories that are constructive and harms the quality of Wikipedia. (It certainly also removes a lot bad categorization, but those could normally be removed on other grounds, usually WP:OC#Small). The guideline also seems very selectively applied to pop culture categories while more "serious" people can have categories. (I know that comes close to WP:OtherStuffExists but it is so systematic that I think this just serves as a vehicle for IDontLikeIt.) I work primarily in the category space and I don't understand why this guideline is trying to accomplish, how to interpret when to apply it, and the examples are baffling to me. I don't even like the name because I think it has turned into jargon for a reason-less reason. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Re. My concern is that this guideline is removing categories that are constructive and harms the quality of Wikipedia... (etc): Again, examples *please*. I really can't say anything sensible about this without examples. If this is only *theoretically* about pop culture cats, without a single example (existing or deleted), the discussion is moot before it started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fair. This is taking a little longer than I thought because Google Advanced doesn't seem to include CFD discussion, but I'll provide some. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Seven years ago, maybe time to re-evaluate. I suppose that in the mean while there are a number of new articles directly relating to Wayne that would make this eponymous category viable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe clarify a bit: specific difficulty with Gershwin is that he has one leg in classical music (including opera), with such categorisations as Category:Opera recordings, and another in more popular music genres (generally using the Album epithet for recordings, e.g. Category:Albums by artist usually named rather after the performer than the composer - "tribute albums" as in Category:George and Ira Gershwin tribute albums is a concept not used in the realm of classical music). Other issues: distinguishing recordings of the music as opposed to film recordings; film scores attributed to the ad hoc score composer even if entirely based on Gershwin's music; lyrics mostly but not always by brother Ira; role of orchestrators which is in fact an elaborate separate chapter in Gershwin's music (but not yet very developed in the eponymous article, and rather fractured in other articles); etc...--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure, would certainly need work. Maybe it's about a choice too: her filmography, discography and awards have detailed lists (and can give appropriate attention to her songs and film producer work). Categories referring to Kidman could only be added to film articles where she had a lead role or an award winning performance per WP:DEFINING (I suppose - not sure what standards are for film articles), so this would never work nearly as good as the lists. Blossom Films and near relatives / significant life partners would have clear links from the article... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Part of a reason: keep people categories separate
Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations has (5th bullet): keep people categories separate. I think that is an underlying reason why works of creators are better in a "Works by..." category than in an eponymous category (for categories named after people) — for people the eponymous category would (almost by definition) be part of a people categorization scheme, limiting direct members to biographical articles. So for people the eponymous category would maybe have a few direct relatives and intimates as members (in the case such family members and intimates are notable in their own right to have a separate article), a few spin-offs of the main biography, and a few subcategories (like the "Works by..." subcategory). Mostly that is not enough to warrant a separate category. A way out (if several members of the same family have a separate Wikipedia article) is to have a Family category (which would of course be also a people category).
Some examples to illustrate this:
Category:Isaac Newton — the example shows that it remains difficult to separate the biographical content in a clean way, which is a contra-indication against such eponymous people categories. The amount of biographical material and publications by and on the person need to be extensive to warrant the creation of such high maintenance category.
As the same reasoning doesn't apply to (for instance) companies and organizations (except that for example notable board members should best be in a specfic people subcat) this may explain why WP:OC#EPONYMOUS is applied less strictly to such eponymous categories.
If the concern the eponymous guideline addresses is that categories about people are conceptually different so we should have a different approach, I think that's a lot more compelling that the reason that is there now (i.e. being able to link form articles means categories shouldn't be used). RevelationDirect (talk)
Again, that is not a *reason* but the current practice on how to get rid of a superfluous eponymous cat. The reason why is in the lede, that by default applies to all specific forms of overcategorization.
The WP:COP related reason is in the WP:COP guideline, I don't think we should rehash that reason here, but a link to that part of the WP:COP guideline might be useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for my fumbling word use. I'm trying to distinguish between the overall point of the Overcategorization page versus the point of individual sections of the page. Thanks for your patience. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: Yay! I think we've reached something we can agree upon – can we (briefly) mention the "people" vs "works by" category trees in this guideline? I notice your reasoning somewhat dovetails with all three points I outlined above. I think our approach is different though. Honestly, if reasons accepted at a CFD contravene a wider guideline, my position is that we should disregard them here (e.g. the point about links in article space having consequences for the category space). SFB16:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Strachey family category fails WP:SHAREDNAME because it just lists people with that last name (who may be related) but it's unclear why they are a meaningful grouping. Isaac Newton seems like a valid category that has had WP:OC#ASSOCIATED inserted; the biography categories other than Newton should be removed. Not counting the person the eponymous category is named after, I think including other biography articles is very rarely useful.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Eponymous categories for people As a general rule of thumb most people should not have their own unique eponymous category. One reason is that if almost every notable person had their own category, it would mean hundreds of thousands or millions of additional categories to maintain. Secondly, such categories normally give no benefit or at best extremely limited benefit to readers because typically all the article links directly related to the subject is included in their main article. For example, an actor or artist will typically have a complete list of his works included in his main article, and a reader interested in reading those links will normally visit that person's article first before visiting a category named after them. Finally, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, when you create an eponymous category for someone that category tag can theoretically start appearing on anyone else's article that mentions them. Thus if it appears that the navigational needs of the reader are sufficiently served by the person's main article, an eponymous category generally should not be created.
Therefore as a rule eponymous categories for individuals should be avoided. The main exception would be when the person's main article is split into multiple directly related subarticles which otherwise can not be reasonably categorized. An example of such an exception would be Jan Smuts which has subarticles such as Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War which are best function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. Category:Ronald Reagan is another example which contains multiple subarticles and lists directly related to Ronald Reagan that seem to work best when categorized in this eponymous category.
"Finally, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, when you create an eponymous category for someone that category tag can theoretically start appearing on anyone else's article that mentions them." this sounds very similar to the concerns raised by multiple editors above but it doesn't appear in the current guideline. I'm not sure if we have agreement on whether this means you shouldn't create the category at all or just that you shouldn't abuse it though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that the first reason
One reason is that if almost every notable person had their own category, it would mean hundreds of thousands or millions of additional categories to maintain.
has been moved/merged to the lede as an overall consideration.
Here's a category I cleaned up this morning: Category:Virginia Woolf. This one is interesting for the 3rd and final reason
Finally, because notable people often interact with hundreds or thousands of other notable people, when you create an eponymous category for someone that category tag can theoretically start appearing on anyone else's article that mentions them.
Bleck, this category might better be called "Anyone who once had lunch with Virgia Woolf". This appears to be a "People associated with... category under another name. Again, I don't defend this category but I think we have other guideliness to kill it with. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh, the more I look at this one, the more interesting it is. It doesn't run afoul of keeping people articles separate, although it does combine Woolf family and Woolf scholars. Other than that, my only grief with it is that I don't think people would click on a category named after a person (with no modifier) and expect to see other people. So this is more a category that should be renamed rather than a conceptual grouping problem. Thanks for providing this example.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Bleck, that category should go. Even if we don't agree on eponymous, WP:Small should shoot that out of the water. I take your larger point though that, if a category is only populated with garbage, the cat itself should go.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the old idea has any relevance seven years on. The concept of defining characteristics is much more developed now and there is explicit consensus that the category system is a navigational supplement to the main space per the lead of WP:Categorization; linking of a topic in an article should not directly affect categorisation – it is not a "See also" system. The content at the main guideline at the time in 2007 shows the original eponymous guideline additions were not in line with the wider consensus at the time either. The proposal of putting a numerical limit on the number of defining characteristics a topic has never achieved broad consensus and should not be included until there is one. SFB19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I do see Francis Schonken's point that Eponymous categories seem to have unique problems with inappropriate articles being added (and if all the articles are inappropriate, the category can't stand). That to me, is a lot stronger position than the current guideline although I wonder if other guidelines can address that. RevelationDirect (talk)
These categories work best when the person's main article is split into multiple directly related subarticles which otherwise can not be reasonably categorized. An example would be Jan Smuts which has subarticles such as Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War which are best function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. People who have a large number of related categories may also work as eponymous category such as Category:Ronald Reagan.
Avoid populating eponymous categories with the following:
Non-defining: Content in which the person/group is neither the primary topic nor a highly defining aspect of the content.
Too long. Should be shorter than what is in the guideline now. Is already one of the longest sections, so not make it longer for something that is mostly evident from other guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I'm basically relisting the other guidelines and saying "that applies to eponymous categories too." Also, the other guidelines seem more conversational. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
These categories work best when the person's main article is split into multiple directly related subarticles which otherwise can not be reasonably categorized. An example would be Jan Smuts which has subarticles such as Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War which are best function best when categorized together under Category:Jan Smuts. People who have a large number of related categories may also work as eponymous category such as Category:Ronald Reagan.
Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in sub-categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Notable people are likely to be associated with or related to a large number of other notable people. Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid overcategorizing an eponymous category in order to justify its existence.
That first paragraph could be further condensed to "Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." YOu know what, ignore this one, I'm just thinking out load here. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec - I see you already solved part of this in your next proposal, I'm going to post it "as is" to avoid further embarassment) The proposal should be clearer that also eponymous categories not named after persons exist (see many examples in Wikipedia:Eponymous categorization) and are often less problematic.
The proposal should be clearer that eponymous categorization (for cats named after people) is by and large overcategorization. split biographies are all in all a rather exceptional phenomenon. I know exactly 2 3 (Jan Smuts, Isaac Newton and Category:Prem Rawat). So most of these are "with multiple subcats" examples, (and/)or a WP:OC#ASSOCIATED liability.
Also, regarding the examples you'd propose to use on the guideline page (Category:Ronald Reagan, Category:Theodore Roosevelt) best check whether you'd really want to use these as "good" examples of what the guideline is explaining.
Maybe start with something in this vein:
For every eponymous category a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography), per keep people categories separate. For categories named after persons that is usually a problem... etc
I'd really like to avoid stating that Eponymous categories are bad, not because it may not be true, but because it is really harming the conversations in the CfD nominations of the non-ridiculous categories. The nominator says strike this cat because it is eponymous of a person. And the responses are split between those that see that it is eponymous and those that looking at the cat and thinking "this looks OK." Absolutely no one is arguing the bizarre Category:Tolkien studies exception in the current guideline.
This is why I assumed this guideline did not represent a consensus but now I'm thinking it might just be half poorly explained and half dated.
If nominators now have to say "This eponymous category of a person should go because of X" that should frame the discuss a lot better because responses would more likely say "Is this really X?" or "Can X be fixed?".RevelationDirect (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in sub-categories such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Notable people are likely to be associated with or related to a large number of other notable people. Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people so Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid overcategorizing an eponymous category in order to justify its existence.
The issue of fans being over-exuberant and creating celebrity categories without enough content comes up a lot. But I'm wondering if the way I phrased the last sentence assumes bad faith.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
For every eponymous category a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article), per keep people categories separate. For categories named after persons, this can be difficult to create conceptually. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories. Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Oprah Winfrey are some examples that accomplish both. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category and should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.
Here's an idea as replacement for the last sentence:
When assessing whether such eponymous category is viable vaguely related articles should be expunged from the category first, keeping only those in that have a (very) direct relation to the subject and cannot be moved to a subcategory.
I like the punctuation parenthetical "(sub)categories". I'm not sure about the last sentence because, even though it's not a formal part of WP:CFD, there is a strong etiquette against purging categories then nominating them for deletion. (I make that faux pas when I start to clean up a category and then realize it can't be salvaged.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category to keep people categories separate and should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories. Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some examples that accomplish both. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.
@Sillyfolkboy: SFB, based on your sentence numbering and alternate example, I constructed the proposal above and inserted into the middle of the existing comments. This is meant to represent your viewpoint so, if I got it wrong, go ahead and fix it. (Please note that I used Francis Schonken's rewording of the Agatha Christie sentence.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I missed that you want to add "Therefore, eponymous categories named after an individual person should generally not contain other people so Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. belongs in Category:Roosevelt family but not Category:Theodore Roosevelt." to WP:OC#Associated. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll support this, and it's also our briefest proposal yet. I'm not a fan of the "EPO" shortcut though as it's not obviously different from the main "EPON". Maybe "OEPON" for Overcategorisation+Eponymous? SFB08:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we can omit parentage detail, be brief and say "in a category such as". I prefer the first two sentences of the 3rd proposal, which rightly combines the "people separate"/"works together" issues. The section title is "Eponymous categories for people" so we don't need to point out about the decision to distinguish non-personal from personal in this section. I would keep 3rd proposal sentences 1+2, and add to them 4th proposal sentences 3+4+6. I also think moving 3rd proposal sentence 4 to the associated people section would be beneficial and keep reasonings together – categorising people as a defining characteristic of another person is something that needs mentioning as a persistent problem and the "associated" section is the place to do that. SFB14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think Category:Oprah Winfrey is not a good example. It contradicts the "works by" rule and plenty of articles in the child "Harpo Productions" category also appear in the eponymous category. Although it's nice to have an entertainer in there, something like Category:Albert Einstein would be a better example of what these categories should look like. From my perspective, the contents of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American people are an absolute mess. After we've finished this discussion I would like to open another one about setting limits for putting people in other people's eponymous cats. SFB14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of your suggestions. You're right that the introduction doesn't need to restate the topic and the category example is better. The shortcut change is fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the big issues with these cats is shoving random other people into someone else's eponymous category. I think part of the solution is to clarify WP:OC#ASSOCIATED so it clarifies that such categories are forbidden when they occur in practice, even when the "name" of the category is fine. But I also think that while "Keep people categories separate" applies to all categories, eponymous ones are uniquely vulnerable to having random associates added to otherwise workable categories. I think proposal 4 may have overemphasized this point, but it should be included. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(Just noticed keep categories separate is included in the 2nd sentence of your proposal but I'm looking for a little more emphasis.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Eponymous categories named after people should only be created if enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category but should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Like with all categories a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article), per keep people categories separate. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.
Conensus? This is basically version 3.5 from SFB with the Version 4 sentence from Francis Schonken placed in the middle with some rewording from me. Does this work for everyone? Is there anyone else observing this page who would like to hop in? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In certain very notable cases, an individual's name can be used to categorize the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln. However, this should not be done simply to reduce the number of categories displayed in an article.
Categories using the name of a person hold articles directly related to that person. Remember this when placing the article in larger categories. If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category. This often results in the article and category being categorized differently. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush.
Yeah, we should probably just reference that. I do think this guideline need to be better linked to the related guideline/policies. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I took a closer look and it's not too surprising that the long guide for how you should categorize people has some overlap on a short guideline on common ways that people should not categorize them.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist. Individual works by a person should not be included directly in an eponymous category but should instead be in a (sub)category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. Like with all categories a choice has to be made whether it is a "people" category (only containing biographical articles) or not (not containing a single biography beyond the main article) to keep people categories separate. Practically, even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are some exceptions. Fans of celebrities should be cautious to avoid adding clutter to eponymous categories.
I support this version as ready to use and I'm happy to move on. FYI - I would like the next discussion to address the issues at WP:EPONCAT and WP:EPON around how to categorise the eponymous category. Guidelines are clearly unworkable in practice for the obvious reason that no single parent category will ever work for all child articles in something like Category:George W. Bush or even Category:Mekong River. SFB19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for coming from very different places and ending in a consensus that vastly improves the guideline. 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Shortcuts
I noticed when looking for previous CFD discussions, that the discussions do not show up in Google searches. (I assume these were intentionally excluded to avoid readers inadvertently getting these discussions with their search results.) Also, the "What links here" button doesn't work for section hashtags. For instance, if you go to Wikipedia:Overcategorization and click "What links here", there is no way to see just discussions pointing to WP:OC#OPINION. In contrast, clicking on the "What links here" button for a shortcut like Wikipedia:SMALLCAT provides a nice list of prior discussions.
I'd like to create shortcuts for all of the remaining guidelines but a consistent naming convention is difficult. There are already several with existing shortcuts, some guidelines involve inherently bad categorizations and other ones that can be misused, and some obvious choices like WP:PERFORMANCE and WP:EPONCAT are already taken. Here is what I came up with:
I've no problem with any of those. I think this an uncontroversial suggestion you can be bold about. Might be worth changing WP:OEPON to WP:OCEPON if you wish to set a format. SFB20:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that categorizing people who have worked behind-the-scenes on a particular project (such as a play, film, or television show) should generally not be categorized by that project? This is closely related to WP:PERFCAT, but it's not about performance. For example, at the moment Albert R. Broccoli is in Category:James Bond, but George Lucas is not in Category:Star Wars. One of those is surely wrong, no?
On a related note, when we say that people should not be categorized by a project they worked on (as, for example, Television producers by series), is that the same as saying that they should not be present in the category for that project? If we disallow, say, a category for producers of James Bond movies, does that mean that Albert R. Broccoli should be removed from Category:James Bond? Or is there a distinction to be drawn between creating a subcategory for people affiliated with a particular production, and categorizing people closely affiliated with said production with that production? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That judges category obviously is including guest judges, so at a minimum should be purged of all but the recurring judges. As for the participant categories, in many cases that may be a subject's primary claim to fame or at least how they first got famous and so will be defining for them. Probably depends on what reality show we're talking about, as some of them just recycle TV personalities or forgotten celebrities rather than being a launching pad. Compare Top Chef with The Surreal Life... I know "case by case" is rarely anyone's favorite answer, but that seems like the best way to judge these. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
For this specific case, I would agree to trim this to the regular judges. A singular appearance is not definitive aspect of a person any more than, say, a cameo in a movie. We don't even categorise people within films they've played lead in. The best approach would be to avoid such a categorisation unless that performance was a persistent prominent role (e.g. Gary Barlow in Category:The X Factor (TV series) judges is OK, Ricci in Runway judges is not). SFB03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
"Definingness" as notability guideline for categories themselves (not their member articles)
Yes, the con is they have nothing to do with one another. "Notability" is entirely about whether topics merit standalone articles based on coverage in sources and/or certain qualities or achievements of the topic. "Defining" is entirely about whether a category fact (i.e., what fact are we categorizing) is significant to an article topic (and it's not "new", we've been using that word in this context for several years). postdlf (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Restricting the scope of the common English word "nobability" to articles and inventing a new word "definingness" to apply only for categories is a system invented by WP which a lay person would have difficulty following. Why "definingness" cannot be understood as "notability for categories"? I'm trying to make WP more friendly for inexperienced users -- I'm sure you're familiar with the "oh shit" graph. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"...is a system invented by WP..." That's exactly correct. The Wikipedia editing community has settled on these terms and how to use them. We use "notability" as a term of art to mean a particular form of article inclusion criteria (though still strongly tethered to its ordinary meaning), and it would only cause confusion to stretch it beyond how we have used it for well over a decade. "Definingness" is less a term of art and more just a bland descriptive term when raised as a question in the category context: "is this fact defining for article subjects? does it define who or what they are?" postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:NON-DEFINING has been used in nominations for deletion of entire categories, very much in the same way that notability guidelines have been used in article deletion nominations -- that's how I made the parallel. But I'll quit insisting. Let the WP system serve its creators. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is 7 'saint' categories appropriate for this article?
It's not a lot if he belongs in all the listed categories. The question isn't the number of categories... but whether this specific saint belongs in all these specific categories. I don't know enough about the subject to answer that. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar: If this is a common issue with saint articles, it could be a sign that the categorization structure is too granular and leads to category clutter, per WP:NARROWCAT. It looks like this is a one-off issue with a saint that was in Britain when it ceased to be a part of Rome and then was a missionary to another area though.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
About WP:OCMISC, what are your thoughts on using an "Uncategorized" (or "Undercategorized") maintenance sub-category (hidden) so as to help clean-up articles that often get temporarily dropped in a base category but are not general concepts, rather are actually awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories? Or should such articles just be tagged with {{Undercategorized}} instead? Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm pointing to an unintended consequence of WP:OCMISC, which is that the base of any given category holds general articles as well as undercategorized articles; the latter should be checked and probably needs diffusion, the former has been triaged already. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be conflating at least 3 separate things - stubs, undercategorized articles and articles that should be moved to one or more lower categories. Can you explain clearly how you think the existing guideline should be changed? DexDor(talk)04:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The guideline should allow for sub-categories named "Undercategorized", so as to minimize confusion between general-concept articles that should remain at the base category and other articles that are just waiting further categorization. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
If I understand your comment, you're suggesting something like Category:Science (undercategorized)? I think the best argument against that would be that people who are most likely to miscategorize something in a base-level category are those who are unfamiliar with the category structure, and so they would also be least likely to know to use such a maintenance category. And anyone who would be likely to apply such a maintenance category would make better use of their time to simply place the article in an appropriate, specific subcategory. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this hits the nail on the head. It's a specialist category as a solution to a non-specialist problem. SFB22:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
