merged from WP:COP |
merged from WP:COP |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
:Examples: ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio|Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio]]'', ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 30#Category:Quarterbacks from Louisiana|Quarterbacks from Louisiana]]'', ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Male models from Dallas, Texas|Male models from Dallas, Texas]]'' |
:Examples: ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio|Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio]]'', ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 30#Category:Quarterbacks from Louisiana|Quarterbacks from Louisiana]]'', ''[[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Category:Male models from Dallas, Texas|Male models from Dallas, Texas]]'' |
||
Geographical boundaries are a way to divide subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics |
Geographical boundaries are a way to divide subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics. For example, ''Roman Catholic Bishops of the [[Diocese of Columbus|Diocese of Columbus, Ohio]]'' or ''[[New Orleans]] [[New Orleans Saints|Saints]] quarterbacks''. |
||
And location may be used as a way to [[WP:DIFFUSE|diffuse]] a large category into subcategories. For example, [[:Category:American writers by state]]. |
And location may be used as a way to [[WP:DIFFUSE|diffuse]] a large category into subcategories. For example, [[:Category:American writers by state]]. |
||
However, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined merely by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state). |
However, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined merely by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state). |
||
People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, regardless of ethnicity, or nationality. However, residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. The category page of '''People from Foo''' should mention the most commonly used names for residents ("Fooians", or "Fooers"), assuming that common usage is verifiable (e.g. by Google). |
|||
And the place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual. The residence of parents and relatives is never defining and rarely notable. The place of death is not normally categorized; consider using a list if this relates to a specific place or event. If it is relevant to identify the place of burial (either from the viewpoint of the person or the burial place), then someone buried in a less notable cemetery, or in a place with just a few notable burials, should be recorded in a list within the article about the burial place. However, if the burial place is notable in its own right and has too many other notable people to list, then burials should be categorized. |
|||
{{anchor|TRIVIA}}{{anchor|TRIVIAL}} |
{{anchor|TRIVIA}}{{anchor|TRIVIAL}} |
Revision as of 18:51, 22 July 2023
Categorization is a Wikipedia feature used 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.
|
|
Non-defining characteristics
- See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people § Categorize by defining characteristics and Wikipedia:Defining
One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics:
The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:
- a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine whether a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine whether particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine whether a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list is often the preferred alternative.
In disputed cases, the categories for discussion process may be used to determine whether a particular characteristic is defining or not. For example, there is consensus that places should not be categorised as established in the year of the earliest surviving historical record of the place.
Subjective inclusion criteria
- Examples: Obese people, Cult actors, Mysterious musicians, Outstanding Canadians, Wars France lost, Racist people
Adjectives which imply a subjective, vague, or inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Examples include subjective descriptions (famous, notable, great), any reference to relative size (large, small, tall, short), relative distance (near, far), or character trait (beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young).
Arbitrary inclusion criteria
- Examples: School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests, Locations with per capita incomes over $30,000, Category:100th episodes
There is no particular reason for choosing "7%", "$30,000", or the 100th episode as cutoff points in these cases. Likewise, a school district with 3,800 students is not meaningfully different from one with 4,100 students. A better way of representing this kind of information is to make it a list, either in an existing article, or as a separate list, such as "List of school districts in (region) by size". Note that Wikipedia allows a table to be made sortable by any column.
Intersection by year or time period
Categorizing by year (or group of years, such as by decade, by century, or even by historical era) is not generally considered an #ARBITRARY division for categorization.
However, avoid creating a category tree of individual by year categories with very few members (see also #NARROW and WP:OC/SMALL). In that situation, consider grouping them by the next tier up. So for example, instead of grouping by year, group by decade. And then diffuse the by decade categories by year only when necessary.
Do not categorise people by day or month of birth (see also list of CFD examples here).
When categorizing by time period, clearly state the inclusion criteria at the top of the category. For example, This category is for politicians who were active in the 19th century is not the same as This category is for politicians who were born in the 19th century.
Intersection by location
- Examples: Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Male models from Dallas, Texas
Geographical boundaries are a way to divide subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics. For example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks.
And location may be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories. For example, Category:American writers by state.
However, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined merely by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state).
People are sometimes categorized by notable residence, regardless of ethnicity, or nationality. However, residential categories should not be used to record people who have never resided in that place. The category page of People from Foo should mention the most commonly used names for residents ("Fooians", or "Fooers"), assuming that common usage is verifiable (e.g. by Google).
And the place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual. The residence of parents and relatives is never defining and rarely notable. The place of death is not normally categorized; consider using a list if this relates to a specific place or event. If it is relevant to identify the place of burial (either from the viewpoint of the person or the burial place), then someone buried in a less notable cemetery, or in a place with just a few notable burials, should be recorded in a list within the article about the burial place. However, if the burial place is notable in its own right and has too many other notable people to list, then burials should be categorized.
Trivial characteristics or intersection
Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability.
For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivial. Such an item which may be appropriate information to include in an article, may still be inappropriate for categorization. In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic.
Also avoid categorizing people by information associated with a person's death, such as the age at which the person died, the place of the person's death, or by whether the person still had unreleased or unpublished work at the time of their death.
Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself.
For example, a category for unrelated people who happen to be named "Jackson" would be inappropriate. However, categorization may be appropriate if the categorized people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping articles directly related to a specific Jackson family, such as Category:Jackson family (show business).
When confronted with subjects that share a name, a disambiguation page might be a possible alternative solution.
Mostly overlapping or duplicative
If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, or because religious leadership does not usually change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances.
Narrow intersection
If an article is in category A and in category B, a category A and B does not necessarily need to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up a page's category list. Even worse, an article in categories A, B, and C might be put in four such categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B, and C", unnecessarily cluttering things up even more.
In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large, and similar intersections can be made for related categories.
Miscellaneous categories
- Examples: People of the Moravian Church miscellaneous, Brass bands of other countries, Uncategorised songs
Do not categorize articles into "miscellaneous", "other", "not otherwise specified" or "remainder", categories. It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into subcategories. If there are some articles that don't fit appropriately into any of the standard subcategories, leave the articles in the parent category. The articles categorized together as "other" or "miscellaneous" generally will have little in common and therefore should not be categorized together in a dedicated "miscellaneous" category.
Eponymous categories for people
- Examples: Tim Halperin, Jena Irene, Clement Meadmore
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. 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.
As 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. In practice, most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate an eponymous category effectively, but Category:Barack Obama, Category:John Maynard Keynes and Category:Albert Einstein are examples of exceptions.
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.
People associated with
- Examples: People associated with John McCain, People associated with Pope Pius XI, People associated with Madonna, People associated with the hippie movement, films associated with Generation X, places associated with The Beatles, or hospitals and medical institutions associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
The problem with saying that something is "associated" with something else, is that it can be a #SUBJECTIVE and vague determination. As can be determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify for inclusion in such a category, the threshold of which may fail #ARBITRARY.
While this may be more commonly applied to people, it also can apply to other "associated" things or topics.
However, it may be appropriate to have categories whose title clearly conveys a specific and defined relationship to a specific person, such as Category:Obama family or Category:Obama administration personnel.
Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation
The main guideline on these categories and categorizations includes a discussion of cross-section categories.
Categories should not be used to group people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. To do so would be original research.
Dedicated group-subject categories that intersect with occupation, residence, or other such characteristics (such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians), should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a defining cultural topic in its own right, such as with Category:African-American politicians. And such articles should be otherwise integrated into the nationality/occupation category structure outside of the ethnicity subcategory. (See also: WP:DUPCAT.)
Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their race or sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorization, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.
Also, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single ethnicity or other notable characteristic, living people must have self-identified.
And this all requires verifiability from reliable sources, with a main article describing the contents (not just a list). Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.
Further,
- Ethnicity-related categories (such as descent or diaspora) should not also contain any individual migrant, emigrant, nor immigrant; instead, that person should be diffused to an appropriate subcategory.
- The ethnicity of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable.
By opinion or preference of an issue or topic
- Example: Cat lovers, Iraq liberation opposition, Star Trek fans
Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals").
Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, as the latter may be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).
Potential candidates and nominees
- Example: Potential 2008 Republican U.S. Presidential Candidates (deleted in November 2006)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A candidate not yet nominated for public office, the possible next CEO of a certain corporation, a potential member of a sports team, an actor on the short list to play a role, or an award nominee (just to name a few examples) should not be grouped by category. Lists may sometimes be appropriate for such groupings, especially after the passage of the events to which they relate.
Award recipients
- Example: Category:MTV Movie Award winners, Category:Honorary citizens of Berlin, Category:People who have received honorary degrees from Harvard University
A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients. And a recipient of an award should be added to a category of award recipients only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic of the recipient.
Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the existence of lists and categories is determined by separate criteria. So regardless of whether a category is created, a list of the recipients may be created (presuming that the list meets the notability criteria). If both a category and a list are viable on the same topic, such a list may make a suitable main article for the category, indicated with the {{Cat main}} template.[2]
Published list
- Example: Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums
Magazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be #SUBJECTIVE and may be somewhat arbitrary. Some particularly well-known and unique lists such as the Billboard charts may constitute exceptions, although creating categories for them may risk violating the publisher's copyright or trademark.
Venues by event
- Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues
Avoid categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events or concerts, convention centers that have hosted specific conventions or meetings, or cities featured in specific television shows that film at multiple locations.
Likewise, avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations. Many notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted so many sports events and conventions over time that categories listing all such events would not be readable.
However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate.
Performers by performance
Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc.
This includes categorizing a production by performers' performances. For example, just as we shouldn't categorize a performer by action or appearance, we shouldn't categorize a production by a performer's action or appearance in that production.
Performers by action or appearance
- Examples: Actresses who have appeared veiled, Anal porn actress, Musicians who play left-handed, Saxophonists who are capable of circular breathing
Avoid categorizing performers by some action they may have performed (such as a "pirouette", a "runway walk", a "spit take", a "sword fight", "anal sex", etc.); some method of performance (such as while standing on their head, left-handed, etc.); or how they may have chosen to appear (such as bald, veiled, etc.)
Performers by role or composition
- Performers who have portrayed <character name>
- Performers who have portrayed <a type of character>
- Performers who have performed <a specific work>
- Examples: American dramatic actors, Actors that portrayed heroes or villains, Jim Steinman artists, Actresses who portrayed Lois Lane, Actors who have played serial killers, Actors who have played gay characters, Actors who played HIV-positive characters, Actors who have played the President of the United States, and Actors who have played Doctor Who.
Avoid categories which categorize performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes portraying a specific character (such as Darth Vader, or Hamlet). This also includes voicing animated characters (such as Donald Duck), or doing "impressions"; portraying a "type" of character (such as wealthy, poor, religious, homeless, gay, female, politician, Scottish, dead, etc.); or performing a specific work (such as Amazing Grace, "Waltz of the swans" from Swan Lake, "To be or not to be" from Hamlet (the play), "Why did the chicken cross the road?" (a joke), etc.).
Similarly, avoid categorizing artists based on producers, film directors or other artists they have worked with (such as "George Martin musicians" or "Steven Spielberg actors"). Performers are defined by their body of work, not by the people they have associated with professionally. For example, Tom Hanks is distinguished by his performances as an actor, not by the fact that he has appeared in Steven Spielberg's films.
Performers by production or performance venue
- Performers who have performed at <location>
- Performers who have performed on <production>
- Examples: Artists who played Coachella, Saturday Night Live musical guests, Ozzfest performers, Celebrity Poker Showdown players, Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War, and Actors by series
Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production (such as The Jack Benny Program, M*A*S*H, Star Wars, or Phantom of the Opera).
Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers).
- See also #Venues by event.
Role or composition by performer
- <Characters> who have been portrayed by a specific performer
- <Types of characters> which have been portrayed by a specific performer
- <Works> which have been portrayed by a specific performer
- Examples: Fictional characters by actor, Characters portrayed by Johnny Depp, Characters Portrayed by Leslie Nielsen, Fictional characters portrayed by Peter Dinklage, Fictional characters portrayed by Christopher Lee, Films by star, Films starring Jim Carrey
Avoid categorizing characters or specific works by the performers who have portrayed them or appeared in them. A typical film or television series has many actors in various roles, so categorizing by actor results in needless clutter. Similarly, some roles, particularly animated ones like Donald Duck and historical/mythological figures like Zeus, have been performed by multiple actors, and being performed by a particular actor is seldom a defining trait for such roles.
Notes
See also
- Wikipedia:Categorization
- Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
- Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ
- Wikipedia:Categorization of people
- Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)
- Sortable tables
- Wikipedia:Category intersection – one of several open feature requests which seek to be an alternative way to address overcategorization.
- Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation, an essay
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations