Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Category size question

I heard that small categories are those with less than 5-10 pages or subcategories. But what are "large categories"? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on an actual amount, either for "too small" or "too large". This is because the category system is a living tree (or set of trees), and so "one-size-fits-all" would be counter-productive.

We have had established categories with zero members (a rather uncommon occurrence) and categories with thousands of members. Typically, we try to use our best judgement, and when unsure, or if there's a difference of opinion on a particular situation, we try to talk it out.

I hope this helps. - jc37 06:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• The comments in CFD nominations frequently bring up 5 or 10 articles. In practice, categories with 5+ articles don't usually get deleted for WP:SMALLCAT. I have previously suggesting rewriting WP:SMALLCAT to specify an exact number to avoid new-ish editors thinking 3 is fine only to find out later it isn't, but finding a consensus for specific new wording of WP:SMALLCAT has been elusive. (Note that there is also WP:NARROWCAT to avoid making the categories choppy in the way that separates articles in non-meaningful ways even if they have 5+ articles, which I think is the issue with several recent nominations.)

As for what is too large, I have no sense of any consensus because, typically, editors would just create subcategories and not come to CFD. I do suggest adding a table of contents to aid navigation for desktop users for any category with over 200 entries, since that is the cutoff for going to a 2nd page.

And, of course, I second Jc37's advice to talk it out with other editors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we create a Definingness article?

We have an article for the other 2 important tests on Wikipedia, Notability and Verifiability. N.B. Other important Wikipedia tests put into the comment section would be greatly appreciated, and please also discuss the Wikipedia:Defining article, as that contains the section Wikipedia:Defining § From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics which transcludes text from the aforementioned Non-defining characteristics section of this article, including the text describing the two article tests and the test about “definingness” used specifically for categories. SNOCMDE (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbytrarycat exception example

Can we add Category:19th-century politicians to WP:ARBITRARYCAT? It apparently is the example that it indicates at the end of the subsection. It has 3 subcategories and 33 pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 Thinker78 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, because it's part of this tree: Category:Politicians by century. - jc37 23:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 The example refers to exceptions to ArbytraryCat. This is my proposal:

"Categorization by year, decade, century, or other well-defined time period (such as historical era), as a means of subdividing a large category, is an exception to this.

Examples: Category:19th-century politicians, Category:1970s assassinated politicians"

Thinker78 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Well, when doing examples, we tend to try to use different things. So the first category should work. And if you wanted a second example, you could go look in a completely different topic (and not by years). The goal of the examples being that they are clear to the reader and aid in understanding of the text. - jc37 00:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 Can I add then the example like this? "Categorization by year, decade, century, or other well-defined time period (such as historical era), as a means of subdividing a large category, is an exception to this.

Example: Category:19th-century politicians". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have been clearer. The examples at the top of each section are to WP:CFD discussions, not merely to a specific category. I had thought you were referring to a CfD discussion about that category. - jc37 18:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitions of WP:SMALLCAT, potential for growth, and unpopulated categories

Since there's been a lot of discussion on the exact meaning of WP:SMALL at WP:CFD recently, I would like to propose some changes to the current text of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline. If there's need for it, I'll make a formal RfC, but I'd like to get feedback and discuss things informally here first.

The current text is as follows:

Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.

Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page.

The proposed text, with non-trivial changes in bold:

In general, avoid categories that will never have more than five members.

Exceptions:

• Set categories that are part of a larger sub-categorization scheme of the form Category:Foo by X, such as members of Category:Songs by artist within the larger scheme Category:Works by creator, may be created even if they include only one page.
• A category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be created even if an insufficient number of articles exist at the present time.

Summary of non-trivial changes (as marked in bold above and below), with justification:

• An exact number definition - Five appears to be a number that comes up often in discussion. If a category is brought up for discussion, this will make it unambiguous when a category has crossed the acceptable size threshold. This also provides a clear benchmark to potentially check for first when creating new categories.
• Rephrased the subcategorization scheme exception - the prior phrasing is ambiguous and it's unlikely someone consulting a policy page for reference will know what is "overall accepted". I've replaced this with a more general statement that seems to encompass existing guidelines here.
• Removed "By their very definition" from the first sentence - the definition of the category itself is not a priori what typically restricts its size, but other information about it. Further clarification seems unneeded in the text, however.

Questions

1. Is five a good upper bound for WP:SMALLCAT, or should it be higher?
2. Are there other factors that should influence what the number should be?
3. Should Category:People by occupation and nationality, or other categories of the format "Category:Foo by X and Y" be considered an exception to WP:SMALLCAT?
4. Are the other proposed emendations to the text helpful, including those grammar and style ones not outlined above?

- car chasm (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

1.I have heard 5-10 is the consensus. So 5 sounds fine.

2.I think that question is addressed by the flexibility provided by the phrasing of "in general". But specifically, the concerns I heard are category clutter (which should be a non-issue if there was a better categorization system) and navigation.

3.I think the wording of your proposal in the exceptions should be modified to remove the limit you added, "of the form Category:Foo by X". Instead it should read like, "Set categories that are part of a larger sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or Category:Works by creator. They may be created and retained, even if they include only one page." The key words "such as" provides proper guidance that there may be other categories as well that are not mentioned.

4.Something I have pondered is when a series is ok by its size. For example if a category tree has 10 categories and 6 of them have less than 5 pages.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Jc37: I would revamp it much more drastically. Three principles should stand out and should be mentioned ecplicitly:

1. A smallcat nomination does not aim at deletion but aims at merging (to its parent categories).
2. A merger because of smallcat is always only a temporary measure, until more content is available (while in most cases you'd need a crystal ball to determine whether that will happen in 3 or in 30 years).
3. Merging because of smallcat is not a matter of overcategorization but a matter of improved navigation. (It should be entirely separated from WP:OCAT.)

Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

1. 5 is a good minimum, and has been for many years. 10 (proposed by Smallchief) is also OK. 3 has often been used as a minimum in recent months, but I believe that threshold is rather low. I prefer 5 or 10. That said, any specific number can lead to WP:GAMING as jc37 pointed out (I've given scenarios of that below).
2. I can't think of any.
3. No, I don't think so.
4. In general, the proposed texts of car chasm are important steps forward. I don't see anything bad about any changes proposed. If anything, I would suggest they don't go far enough yet. In particular I would add the criterion of Upmerge for now without prejudice against re-creation (WPAR), see my section below. I'm also still thinking about the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, I've even created a user subpage about it to gather my thoughts, and evidence, commentary and suggestions from other people here and elsewhere. It's too early for me to say what to do about it, but I can say already that "large" and "large overall" have been some of the most ambiguous, contentious and unhelpful parts of the phrase. Oculi had objections against "accepted", and I've also found disagreement over what "sub-categorization scheme" means. If it is gonna stay in at all, it needs serious rethinking and reasoning.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Smallcat split

• Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth

Similar to how WP:OC/U is split to a sub-page of this page, I've split Smallcat to be a sub-page of this page. As is typical of a policy/guideline split, it is still labelled a guideline.

Due to recent events, it's clear that even long-term editors of categories and at WP:CFD, apparently differ on the interpretation, the wording, and the applicability, of this section of the WP:OC guideline.

By splitting it, this will allow not only for discussion of the existing text, but also allow for better, more full and clear, explanatory text.

One of the concerns that was expressed that it's possible that newbies are not clear on it due to the current language.

I've redirected its talk page here for now, but if it's preferred to have discussion at that talk page, that's easily done. if wanted.

Hopefully giving everyone a central venue to work on this and work this out should help reduce the disruptions that we've seen on this topic over the years. - jc37 03:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Smallcat

@Jc37 Hi, thanks for taking this initiative! Copypasta from ANI:

Established practice in recent months has, as far as I have experienced, shown that most editors consider a category to be a SMALLCAT if it has only 1 or 2 items (not counting subcategories), and that new categories should only be created if it has at least 5 items. I personally find that a good rule of thumb; if 1 or 2 items were miscategorised by the category creator, then we don't have to immediately delete the newly created category, because 3 is enough for a Keep.

Smallchief is suggesting that a category should have 10 items at all times, from the moment of creation until eternity. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but I would not be opposed to having more stringent criteria than 5 at creation, 3 until eternity.

Choice:

1. At least 5 items at creation, 3 items at all times.
2. At least 10 items at all times.

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A potential problem with no. #1 is that editors can create categories with just 3 or 4 items at creation. What are we going to do about that? Punish them? Delete the category because it didn't have 5 or more items at creation? Well, it does have at least 3 items now, doesn't it? So perhaps "at creation" separately from "at all times" is just not an enforceable criterion, and only "at all times" really helps. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Setting a specific number of items "at all times" may be a good idea, but is also at risk of WP:GAMING. Example 1:

• Editor A who really wants to group items #1, #2 and #3 into Category X, but needs 2 more items to reach the hypothetical minimum of "5 items at all times", might add #4 and #5 which don't really belong in the same group, but at least help editor A reach the threshold.
• Conversely, editor B who just doesn't like Category X can simply commit ECOOPing (emptying categories out of process) by removing item #4 and/or #5 and take Category X to WP:CFD per WP:SMALLCAT.

Is it wrong for editor B to do so? Is it even "out of process", or just a valid correction of the inappropriate categorisation of #4 and #5 to X by editor A? I think not emptying the category before taking it to CfD is the most appropriate course of action, but removing items #4 and #5 beforehand may not necessarily be wrong. Especially if B discloses at the CfD that they removed items #4 and #5 beforehand, and why, B does not disrupt the CfD process.

However, if we do decide that we need a minimum number items at all times ("5" in this hypothetical example), and we consider what B does (without disclosing it) as ECOOPing, then ECOOPing in combination with a SMALLCAT nomination should be considered sanctionable as WP:DISRUPTIVE if it happens deliberately, maliciously, and repeatedly. Example 2:

• If editor C goes around emptying eight categories they just don't like until each of them fails to reach the minimum threshold, and then nominates them (either jointly or successively) for deletion per SMALLCAT without disclosing the emptying, I think that should be sanctionable as disruptive.
• This is because C is making SMALLCATs out of eight categories that weren't SMALLCATs before C came along and partially emptied them, thus enabling an out-of-process deletion.
• Whether items #4 and #5 belong in Category X or not – in other words, whether editor C is technically right or not – doesn't matter. C is not following procedure by emptying categories out of process (ECOOP), and thus hindering fellow editors and admins at CfD to check whether items #4 and #5 do or do not belong in Category X, because C – without disclosing it – has already removed items #4 and #5 from sight inside Category X, thereby disrupting the CfD process.
• If, instead, editor D nominates Category X for deletion, but with a different rationale (e.g. WP:ARBITRARYCAT), and then editor C comes along and removes items #4 and #5 from Category X while under D's nomination without notifying the CfD participants, C has also committed ECOOPing. Even if participants afterwards establish a consensus to Delete X per SMALLCAT (rather than per nominator D's rationale of ARBITRARYCAT), it will be out of process because C has gamed SMALLCAT by ECOOPing without disclosing it. In such a case, Category X should not be deleted, but the discussion redone, and C warned and possibly sanctioned for disrupting the CFD process.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A potential problem with no. #1 is that editors can create categories with just 3 or 4 items at creation. What are we going to do about that? Punish them? Delete the category because it didn't have 5 or more items at creation?

I wasn't thinking anything that extreme above, I doubt that that's useful. I don't think we need to automatically delete any categories that have less than five members, the idea is to establish a clear "auto-reject" line for WP:CFD where articles with more than five members won't be discussed as WP:SMALLCAT, or where items can be added to resolve the discussion, similar to how notability can be demonstrated at WP:AFD.

Conversely, editor B who just doesn't like Category X can simply commit ECOOPing (emptying categories out of process) by removing item #4 and/or #5 and take Category X to WP:CFD per WP:SMALLCAT.

I don't think this is emptying "out of process" if B legitimately believes those items don't belong in the category, this is a reasonable WP:BEFORE step to take to determine the number of valid members. Even emptying a category entirely may sometimes be appropriate; we wouldn't have a speedy deletion process for it if there was no way this could happen naturally.

Is there a policy you're referencing here for "ECOOP"? you seem to be leaning pretty heavily on something I haven't seen documented anywhere. In general I'd say that any WP:DISRUPTIVE or WP:GAMING scenarios should be handled by those respective policies, but avoiding automatic deletion and instead establishing unambiguous prerequisites for WP:CFD, as I've done above, also avoids most of those concerns. - car chasm (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm Is there a policy you're referencing here for "ECOOP"? No, it is an essay I recently began developing with the help of others at User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process (redirect User:Nederlandse Leeuw/ECOOP for Emptying Categories Out Of Process. The term "emptying categories out of process" has been in use on English Wikipedia since at least February 2016, and the same phenomenon was described with other phrases before it; I'm just the first to abbreviate it to "ECOOP" as far as I know).

The essay summarises existing policies and their interpretations, sanction precedents, former policies, case studies, proposals for future policy reform, and makes recommendations for improving cooperation between users. Exactly because these are things lots of people (myself included) haven't seen documented anywhere, I made the effort of finding all this information and documenting it in a central place. At User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process#Request for feedback I've already requested feedback from several users in order to further improve it. You're welcome to give your feedback there as well, I appreciate any improvements. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think establishing a minimum number as a strong recommendation would at least help guide editors who create categories, and to more easily achieve consensus and acceptance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think of SMALLCAT as analogous to our WP:Verifiability requirement. Note that WP:V does not require citations, what it requires, is that content be verifiABLE—not at all the same thing. If editors get into a dispute about whether some content is verifiable, then the burden is on the editor who added the content to prove verifiability by creating a citation for it, but if the citations exist out there, then the content was verifiABLE even before the citations were added. I see SMALLCAT in kind of the same way, in that the wording says that anything with a potential for growth is in; likewise, if there's a dispute, then the burden is on the person who says it's not small to provide proof by finding examples, but if it's clear that it's expandable beyond the threshold, then the category should be immune from deletion, regardless of the actual number of current members.

Had I noticed this discussion about five hours earlier, I could've given a great example of what I mean, from Category:Building and structure articles needing translation from Serbian Wikipedia, which I just created by diffusing items from Category:Articles needing translation from Serbian Wikipedia. It now has 16 members, but let's suppose I moved Altun-Alem Mosque over as #1 item in the new category, then broke for dinner, went to bed, and next morning there was deletion discussion about it at Cfd because of only having one member. And I barely have time to respond once before leaving for six weeks vacation (yeah, if only...), so I respond, saying: "Look at all the articles in the parent category with "Monastery", "Museum", or "Church" in the name, there must be a dozen of them, and they can all be diffused into the new category, but my plane leaves in three hours, so see ya later." Assuming I'm not lying, then that is not a SMALLCAT, even with only one member, and it might be that other volunteers are busy doing other things and maybe have no interest in my pet Serbian project, and so what should happen to that one-member category? Answer: nothing; it should just sit there for six weeks with one member in it, or even longer, if I don't get to it when I get back, because the subcat is provably expandable to a dozen or more, it just hasn't happened yet, due to lack of volunteer time or interest.

So I'm okay with going along with whatever threshold feels right to everyone, whether the limit is 5 or 3 or 10 or whatever number, as long as it's clear in the language you propose that we are talking about the verifiably expandable target number, and not the actual number *right now*. There should perhaps be a similar WP:BURDEN-like statement in there somewhere, about who has the onus of proof, but deleting a category solely because it contains fewer than X number of members right now, should never be acceptable, and any wording change should not lose sight of this. Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"

I've created a new subpage for examining how the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme has been interpreted in the past, why and how it was developed, and issues with its interpretation and application.

This section is an excerpt from User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Examining the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.[edit]

The phase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme is part of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline, and has been since it was first developed in December 2006. But it is unclear what it means, why and how this specific wording was developed, and what are good examples. More importantly, there is widespread disagreement whether it is really works to prevent the deletion or merger of certain important/helpful categories, or that it can be employed as a pretext to oppose the deletion or merger of any category whatsoever, no matter how unimportant/unhelpful that category is. As a result, there is no consensus on how to interpret it, and whether it should stay in the WP:SMALLCAT guideline as it is, should be amended to be clear and work as intended, or be removed the WP:SMALLCAT guideline for serving no apparent useful purpose.

The present text seeks to examine all these questions.

See User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Examining the phrase a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme for the full text. This may help us decide what to do with it. I think its evident that the current text is too vague, but I'm not sure whether it should be amended or just scrapped in its entirety. What do you think? Feedback here or on its talk page are welcome. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 For your information. I've quoted your recent observations about Smallcat early history because it provides helpful insights; I hope that's okay. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Upmerge For Now Without Prejudice Against Re-creation (WPAR)

What Marcocapelle wrote on 4 August 2023 about "grown practice" is quite relevant for what has become a convention supported by many precedents at CFD over many years. Oculi has given extensive examples of this for January–May 2023. The criterion is often formulated as follows (Marcocapelle credited it to RevelationDirect):

• Upmerge for now with no / without prejudice against / objection to re-creation / recreation in the future / at a later stage (if it can be populated with at least 3/5/10 items).

For shorthand, let's just call it UFNWPAR (Upmerge For Now Without Prejudice Against Re-creation), or even shorter WPAR (so we'd !vote '''Upmerge for now''' [[WP:WPAR]] ~~~~). There is disagreement about whether there should be any minimum at all, and if so, which number to put on it. (If you search through the CFD archives, most users will agree on "at least 5 articles/items" as a good rule of thumb. Ever since I became active at CFD since February 2023, I have often seen "at least 3 articles/items" used as a rule of thumb. Smallchief recently proposed "at least 10 articles/items". More on the number under #Discussion of Smallcat). But that's not the important part.

The important part, as Marcocapelle noted, is that we prefer upmerging these categories for now; they are not completely and permanently undesirable categories. We might consider this as a kind of WP:TNT convention, but applied to categories instead of articles. If someone starts over and re-creates the category at some point in the future, and can populate it with, say, 20 items, everyone who !voted Upmerge for now without prejudice etc. will not object to its re-creation. But there is no guarantee that anyone will re-create this subcategory ever again, nor that there will be a sufficient number of items to do so. WP:Write the article first is pertinent here. And so, Upmerging per this criterion of SMALLCAT is a temporary and possibly-but-not-necessarily indefinite measure. Upmerge for now without prejudice etc. !voters just prefer to have these items in the parent category/categories for the time being, mostly for navigational reasons, and regard saying so as good practice.

I think this criterion should be added to WP:SMALLCAT. I would propose a text like:

• A category with very few items (generally fewer than 5 items, but this threshold is not strict) may be upmerged to its parent category/categories for now, without prejudice against re-creation in the future if it can be more properly populated (preferably at least 10 items, but this threshold is not strict).

If putting a number on it is gonna cause problems (as jc37 has argued, because it is vulnerable to WP:GAMING, which I acknowledge), we can just scrap the words between brackets for now; it's not the most important part of the criterion:

• A category with very few items may be upmerged to its parent category/categories for now, without prejudice against re-creation in the future if it can be more properly populated.

As suggested, we could create [[WP:WPAR]] as a redirect link to make things a lot easier than having to write out the full sentence. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle @Oculi @jc37 @RevelationDirect For your information. For the record, this is not a vote yet, just a preliminary discussion of how to possibly improve the text of the WP:SMALLCAT guideline in the future. I'm just tagging you folks because you have given valuable input on this specific issue. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A few hours ago I used it for the first time: * Upmerge for now without prejudice against recreation (WPAR). It's a simple standardisation of commonly accepted practice. If we agree on formalising this convention (perhaps in a few weeks time?), then we could add a text like I proposed above to the WP:SMALLCAT guideline, and create a link to it.

Unfortunately I see now that WP:WPAR has already been taken by Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights, so we'll have to come up with some other clever acronym. WP:NPAR is available, so No Prejudice Against Recreation? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: strongly agree with this, see my earlier as linked to by Nederlandse Leeuw. We can still keep WP:SMALLCAT as well, but in practice that will become a dead letter. WP:NPAR seems fine as an acronym. For now, it should have the status of an WP:ESSAY until a more thorough consensus is reached. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you decide to create a shortcut, just please don't merely say "No Prejudice Against Recreation", because invariably, after the deletion/merge is implemented, I think we all know what will immediately happen next... - jc37 08:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hatnotes

@Jc37: {{main}} should not be used as a hatnote, only in section -- {{broader}} should be used, instead. Also, hatnotes are not meant to link to related content ("see-alsos"), only to ambiguos titles. fgnievinski (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow whatever the guideline is on this that you are referring to. Do you have a link to it?

I ask, because that's not the common practice that I see all over policy pages. - jc37 05:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Article space guidelines are reasonable and can be adopted, unless there are good reasons not to: MOS:SEEALSO, MOS:LEAD, etc. fgnievinski (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And that's fine, but I don't see on those pages where it disallows the use of template:main the way you suggest.

Also, WP:OC exists as a separate page from WP:CAT, obviously due to length. So, again, WP:SS would seem to apply.

So I'm still not sure what your concern is.

The goal here is navigation. - jc37 05:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RELATED: "Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title, of the article or any of its redirects. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic. (...) Similarly, do not use the {{see also}} or {{main}} templates on top of a page, as they are meant only for sections; templates {{other uses}} and {{broader}} might be more appropriate alternatives." fgnievinski (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

The difference is that, unlike articles, policies and guideline can have a main policy or guideline. So for example, WP:BLP is the main policy for biographies of people, but there are many other pages which are supplementary to that. same too for WP:NOT, WP:CAT, etc.

If the issue is that you prefer template:main for article use, I'm fine with that, we can always create a new template for policy and guideline usage.

But common practice just tends to be to re-use what's already existing.

Anyway, it's just a navigation template, I'm not too worried about it, feel free to set the hatnotes however you think will best convey accuracy and best help navigation. At the end of the day, I presume that's the goal, rather than worrying about WP:BURO. - jc37 06:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The main policy or guideline about Overcategorization in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Overcategorization. It has a narrower scope than Wikipedia:Categorization, which is a broader policy or guideline. As explained in {{Main}}, "The only appropriate target for a {{Main}} link in the lead section would be the article itself, which is not useful. {{Broader}} may be appropriate in this case." There is no need for new templates, they just need to be used properly. For example, {{Main}} is fine in section Wikipedia:Categorization#Choosing_a_name_for_the_category for linking to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). fgnievinski (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Added disputed template to SmallCat

• Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth#Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline

I started a discussion at the link above on SmallCat's status as a guideline. - jc37 06:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Process for speedily deleting recreated categories

In the past, when I wanted to speedy delete categories that had previously been deleted at CFD, I would tag them as WP:G4. This didn't work perfectly though because the good editors who work Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion don't usually handle cats so I'd come here eventually to have them deleted but it did give me a process. Awhile back, @Liz: raised concerns that tagging with G4 could lead to WP:REDNOT if these were deleted there without first emptying them.

What's the right process for speedily deleting the categories below that were recreated against consensus after a CFD deletion? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

17 categories deleted at CFD and later recreated

Category Action CFD Nomination Name Format User Note Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Centenary of Regained Independence Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Centenary of Regained Independence Identical User:Adela265 Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 6#A few more award categories and also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 15#Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars Identical User:Montenois Category:Premio Bartolomé Hidalgo Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#Category:Premio Bartolomé Hidalgo Identical User:Marinna Category:Chevening Scholars Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Category:Chevening Scholars Identical User:FuzzyMagma Category:Fulbright alumni Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 28#Category:Fulbright Scholars Different User:FuzzyMagma Note contested deletion after WP:G4 notice. Category:Truman Scholars Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Category:Truman Scholars Identical User:Андрей М-1212 Category:National Heroes of Barbados Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 5#Category:National Heroes of Barbados Identical User:AviationEnzo Mentioned as an example by me at DRV here but not restored. Category:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 2#Category:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan Identical User:TheBirdsShedTears The Category:Foreign recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan subcategory can be nominated at CFD. Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui Identical User:Scanlan Also the subcategories: Category:Commanders of the Order of Tahiti Nui, Category:Officers of the Order of Tahiti Nui,Category:Knights of the Order of Tahiti Nui listed below: Category:Commanders of the Order of Tahiti Nui Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui Identical User:IdiotSavant Category:Officers of the Order of Tahiti Nui Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui Identical User:IdiotSavant Category:Knights of the Order of Tahiti Nui Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nui Identical User:IdiotSavant Category:Recipients of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 31#Category:Recipients of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal Identical User:usernamekiran Category:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 18#Category:Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame inductees Identical User:Stretchrunner II Category:Kennedy Scholarships Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Category:Kennedy scholars Different User:Андрей М-1212 Editor would not receive notice that the category had been previously deleted. Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath Merge to Category:South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath Identical User:Maudslay II Category:People with Guillain–Barré syndrome Delete Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Category:People with Guillain–Barré syndrome Identical User:Tecmo

@Liz: There weren't any takers here. How about I tag categories with WP:G4 and then come here and ping you? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

FYI Liz doesn't receive pings. I've processed most of these. The exceptions are: Category:Fulbright alumni -> given the contest on the talk page I'd prefer not to use my own admin tools, although I agree it meets the criterion. Category:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan -> since you have to nominate the subcategory anyway you might as well include the parent in the same nomination rather than speedy deleting. Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath -> I am not convinced this is eligible for G4. At the time you said The only article in this category is that main article, and the recreation has 4 articles, which feels different enough to handle a new CfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Order of Tahiti Nui is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggested replacement for SmallCat

After reading Wikipedia:Merge for now and Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline, I suggest "Small with no potential for growth" be replaced with "Small with potential for growth" (not using SMALLCAT shortcut because that link has historically been used with the previous guideline).

A category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth, for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis. Also, if it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (rule of thumb: at least 100 members). This provided it has been a fully diffused scheme for years or at least half of its existing categories are not small. For example Category:Rivers by country, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Works by creator.

There may be some situations why a category is left with only one member. For example, an editor created the category and for one reason or another didn't keep populating it, the members were removed, etc.

Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 20:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No. For the very reasons that Smallcat was deprecated.

We should be looking at quality, not quantity.

As it turned out, smallcat was a "crutch", that allowed for not looking at what the "actual" issue with the category might have been. And was disruptively divisive from the very beginning.

And other guidelines seem to be addressing this just fine.

If you want to collaborate on a new/additional guideline, I think WP:MFN has potential. - jc37 14:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"No. For the very reasons that Smallcat was deprecated." I read the relevant Smallcat discussions and my proposal was intended to address concerns there, for example, about arbitrariness. Can you point out what specific reasons you point out?

What kind of quality and quantity are you having in mind? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

To say "small", you are counting members. That's "quantity". It in no way is an assessment of the "quality" of the category. - jc37 05:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This SmallCat guidance is intended to address quantity. To address quality there are other guidelines. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why it was deprecated. - jc37 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I saw the relevant text. Another issue with this, is that SMALLCAT was often about assessing quantity over quality. And that's probably not the direction we should be going.

I think as with any other guidance it is about analyzing and making a balance. For example, a category can be of good quality but have only one member. Then this guideline would cover it and another guideline quality as well or consensus.

In another case, if there is a category of bad quality and has one member, this guideline would cover only the numerical aspect so as not to be deleted only due to having one member. Quality or relevance would not be overruled by this guidance, because such variables would be subject to the regular consensus process, which would determine if it is deleted in other grounds, quantity notwithstanding.

The objection about this guideline only covering quantity seems to be like MOS:BOLD only covering bold fonts and not length of paragraph, or MOS:FIRST only covering the first sentence of the lead and not the body of the article.

I see nevertheless that apparently in the quoted text of your statement, you argue about quantity over quality. My proposal doesn't overrules quality by quantity. It simply addresses quantity without addressing quality. So it is not quantity over quality. This guideline addresses quantity and consensus would determine other issues, like quality. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The question of quality, is what is discussed at CfD. Trying to resurrect SMALLCAT at this point, would honestly just merely be a "crutch" to bypass such discussion.

Adding text for the sake of adding text is probably not a good idea per WP:CREEP. - jc37 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is not bypassing but rather is the next step about replacing the former guideline.

I think I see what you are saying about quantity over quality. What is your opinion of this other version,

Unless there are other issues or concerns other than quantity (for example, quality)—in which case the regular consensus process applies—a category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth (for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis). Also, if it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (rule of thumb: at least 100 members), provided it has been a fully diffused scheme for at least 2 years or at least half of its existing categories are not small (have at least 5 members). For example Category:Rivers by country, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Works by creator.
In order to avoid instruction creep and avert the danger of undermining inclusivity in Wikipedia's ever-expanding repository of knowledge (that could also stifle the incorporation of new and niche topics), discuss categories as needed, specially in other cases.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 20:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 22:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 01:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute,

There has been an ongoing desire, never reaching consensus, to apply a strict numerical threshold for SmallCat (jc37 evidence). Use of such numerical thresholds, even if phrased as a "rule of thumb" or similar such phrase, in CFDs is therefore not supported by the guideline. However, reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.

Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 what evidence did you submit to the arbitration case? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid the controversy of the arbitration ruling and for more consensus, I would propose for the time being an abridged version of my proposal above,

Unless there are other issues or concerns other than quantity (for example, quality)—in which case the regular consensus process applies—a category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth (for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis).

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories don't help you navigate to articles that aren't created yet though; they only let you navigate to articles that already exist. Smallcat's focus on growth potential, in addition to leading to sincere editor disagreement, did not aid reader navigation which is the whole point of categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Concert tours by country

Category:Concert tours by country. Any thoughts on the categorization of concert tours in this manner. An example is Total World Tour. It seems very excessive, and would each one truly be defining to the whole tour? Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute at Talk:Shungite

Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) and I are in disagreement on whether the article Shungite should be placed into Category:Pseudoscience or its subcategories. We cannot seem to agree on whether pseudoscientific claims about shungite are a defining trait for that topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes we are. We have discussed it at Talk:Shungite#Pseudoscience categories. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Nationality and residence

@Jc37 : Please explain your reverts. Frenchl (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Please explain why you think your addition to this guideline was appropriate. There are many editors who watch this page, so please don't think you need to tailor your response only to me when responding. I look forward to reading your thoughts. - jc37 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How is nationality an occupation? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

When merging the page "Categorization of people", you forgot voluntary omitted this section :

"People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality. Residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence."

You can find this section here at WP:COPPLACE : https://web.archive.org/web/20230325051002/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place

What you have done is against the rules of Wikipedia and I might raise your case to ANI. Frenchl (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusations and threats are probably not the way to move towards a consensus. That aside, you are welcome to go to AN/I, but I would politely suggest that you may wish to read WP:BOOMERANG first.

In the meantime, the section you mention was merged to this page, as can be seen in this edit here: [1].

My guess is that it was subsequently edited. What is your specific concern? - jc37 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If it was subsequently edited, you have to re-add it.

My speficic concern is that the sentence "Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence." has been added/transferred nowhere. This is your choice and this is a voluntary omission. Frenchl (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what do you think I did (share diff)? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

not much, it's jc37's edits that are problematic Frenchl (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you let us know what date is the version of that web archive instance of Categorization of people? I have been digging for a while in the page history and cannot find it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The date is 25 March 2023. The page has been merged, so the history is not available on Wikipedia. Fortunately, archive.org exists. Frenchl (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the page where categorization of people used to be if Im not mistaken. I think it was moved, not merged. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to boldly edit guidelines. Per WP:PGCHANGE,

Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance.

Although per WP:TALKFIRST,

Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change.

A note to @Jc37, per WP:TALKFIRST,

Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That section actually says "substantive" major changes. The vast majority of what I did was merely presentational. In particular, unifying guidelines which were split across many pages. (Though there were some talk page posts along the way.)

And you are correct. After the various merges to unify, what was left on that page was about name sorting, so it was renamed to reflect the page's current contents.

User:Frenchl seems to be having several arguments across many pages in regards to nationality. I think we should wait to see what sort of consensus forms concerning those discussions before diving into another one here.

Guidelines should reflect common usage and practice. They should be descriptive, not proscriptive.

So if they are looking for some text to exist here in order to try to "win" some argument elsewhere, then I think they may misunderstand the point of guidelines. - jc37 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)