Wikipedia talk:Categorization

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Categorization page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:CAT

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 40 days

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Should we make sure a false Category has other entries before removing it

If I come across a person who lived 1712-1798 and find that they are in Category:19th-century French merchants (which oddly enough does not exist) am I justified in removing it even if it is the only article in that category, or do I have to instead leave it there and file a formal petition to delete the category. Either way this illustrates that we need to come up with much better rules against overly narrow intersection categories, because the uncontroversial edit I outline above should not require such an extensive process to accomplish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of by century categories

I was under the impression that by century categories were a convenient way to subdivide other categories that are to large. I have seen people argue that x-nationality by century categories are container categories. I think we should formalize this view. By century categories are supposed to be limited to the intersection of something defining amd that century. I think therefore we need to define what that definingness is. I think we need to limit all by century categories that have biograohical articles to being the intersection of an occupation, broadly defined, and that century. Or sub-cats thereof. The general 18th-century people category and any non-occupational sub-cats should only function as container categories for by century categories that are occuaptional in a broad sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In our frenzy to subdivide large categories we seem to have moved far far from the principles that categories should be defining and that separate defining properties should be listed as separate categories. Instead, I have to somehow remember or look up which combinations of subsets of characteristics are named as categories and that are not covered by even more specific combinations of subsets, and then which of those combinations are diffusing and which are not. So that if, for instance, someone has American and Dutch nationality, works as a mathematician, specializes in geometry, of African descent, is a women, and has been active in both the 20th and 21st centuries, I need to remember that American women mathematicians are subcategorized by century but Dutch women mathematicians are not, that American mathematicians are subcategorized by specialty but Dutch mathematicians are not, that we have categories for African-American mathematicians and African-American women mathematicians (non-diffusing in their mathematician parent categories but not in their African-American or African-American women parent categories respectively), that Dutch people of African descent are categorized by place of descent but not by occupation, etc. etc. Most of these are non-defining intersections of defining characteristics. I end up with a random assortment of a dozen categories much longer than the single sentence of my description above. I don't even think it's possible to automate this process of going from characteristics to categories because most of our categories are not annotated as to whether they are pure intersections of their parent categories or whether they add extra information beyond that. Getting it right is so tedious and annoying that I seldom can or do. And then once all our articles are categorized in this way it becomes difficult or impossible to list or even count the articles in a parent category because they are all broken out into a complicated hierarchy of overlapping subcategories. I think these intersections are broken and I think we should stop using them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive sub-dividing of ambassador categories

We have a huge number of ambassador catrgories that only have 1 article. Thus seems to stem from a view that it is reasonable to have every one of the in excess of 20,000 possible ambassador categories at least as long as any example has at least 1 article. The potential is probably worse than that, since there are in addition to all the existing countries, past countries like the Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and so on each of which both sent and received Ambassadors. So Ambassadors to Prussia (which really should be Ambassadors to the Kingdom of Prussia) has 4 sub-cats with 2 or less articles. Size is not the only issue though. Many Ambassadors had multiple assignments over time, and in some cases the same ambassador served as the agent of their country to several countries all at the same time. I think most of the current problem will require CfD nominations, but it would be nice if we could stop the creation of more small categories now. Especially since ambassadors are not default notable so the fact Country X has sent multiple Ambassadors to country Y in no way shows that they will all be noable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also should ambassador categories A-hold only those who held the title Ambassador. B-include every formally appointed top representativd of countey Y to country X regardless of title. C-cover every person who acted as the top representative of ciuntry Y to country X. I think B is what we should do, but C is the current reality. I think very short term appointees, consuls who were at the time the top representative and other things not even close to regular appointments should nit be included, but on the ither hand since we categorize bt shared name we should not worry if the title was anbassador, minister etc as long as they were the top representative of nation X in nation y.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we need to establish a minimum size of Ambassadors of X country, and of Ambassadors to Y country, before we create any sub-cats at all. I think 100 would be a reasonable minimum, but and willing to consumider other numbers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably entail deleting most of the categories. I have been prodding a number of non-notable ambassadors recently resulting in the deletion of quite a few categories with single members. AusLondonder (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really should not have a situation with so many single member categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Klingenberg is in 9 catrgories for being an ambassador. I think he only held 2 ambassadorial appointments, the current one is to 3 countries, the previous one may have been to 6 at once. I think 7 of the categories he is the only entry in and 2 he is one of two articles in the category. This seems excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need both women ambassador and women diplomat categories

I noticed armt least for some nationalities we have women ambassador and women diplomats categories. The women ambassador categories are sub-cats of the diplomat category, but some articles are in both categories. I am thinking we either do not need women ambassador categories at all or we really should only have them in cases where we end up with a very large women diplomats category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

categories for historical subdivisions of countries

Copied frm User_talk:@Marcocapelle::

Looking at your another decat it came to my mind that some of the places do belong to these due to their strong nin-accidental assaciations, namely capitals of their subdivisions. For example, for category:Suwałki Governorate it is reasonable to contain Suwałki as its sapital, as well as Augustów, Kalvarija, etc., for being capitals of its counties. What do you think? --Altenmann >talk 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: having been the capital of a past administrative division is not a defining characteristic of a current city. We do not even have categories for capitals of current administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't ask for a separate category for capitals. I disagree that being a capital is not a defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not focused on recent times and being a capital s just as important for the past as it is for

today.

What is your opinion? --Altenmann >talk 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The question arose because Marcocapelle removes pop.places from these categories like here While this may be reasonable, I guess editors who categorized in this way may have their reasons as well. I will try to find a couple and ping them, asking for their arguments. I dont think it is WP:CANVASSING, because I am not looking for a headcount, but for arguments. --Altenmann >talk 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. My zeal sizzled: I checked a couple of these and they are long gone. And the concerned WPLithuania seems moribund. :-( anyway, @Pofka: @Dr. Blofeld: @Renata3: --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia is an interesting example, because smaller municipalities have recently been merged to larger municipalities. Should we categorize the capitals of the past municipalities as past capitals? They are mostly just villages. And if not, where do we draw the line? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean under "categorize the capitals ... as past capitals"? We don't have categories for capitals. Whatever your question means, it does make sense to write that "Niekuriškai was the capital of Niekurių senunija between 1990-2014" in the "History" section. --Altenmann >talk 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional couples

Category:Fictional couples is a mess. How much fiction doesn't involve couples? Even restricting it to those who appear in multiple works still seems too broad to me. Thoughts? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a pretty pointless category to me, but off the top of my head I'm not sure exactly what P&G it's in violation of. However, you might suggest that the category should only be used to list articles that name or explicitly refer to fictional couples (e.g. Frankie & Alice), rather than any article that has a couple as an arguably non-primary focus (e.g. Gold Blend couple). DonIago (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]