Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 16) (bot |
Category size question |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
:::::I hope this helps. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
:::::I hope this helps. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::Thanks for your advice. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 03:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Thanks for your advice. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 03:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
==Category size question== |
|||
I heard that small categories are those with less than 5-10 pages or subcategories. But what are "large categories"? Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:22, 9 June 2023
Categories | ||||
|
RFC on WP:OCVENUE
Shall this paragraph be removed from the "Venues by event" section (OCVENUE)?
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.
This would allow for the existence of categories such as Category:Events at Wembley Stadium. The rest of OCVENUE would remain in place, so that categories like Category:WrestleMania venues are still disallowed. See further discussion in the section above. Toohool (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF, Beeswaxcandle, Brainulator9, Epicgenius, Fayenatic london, Flibirigit, Fuzzy510, GiantSnowman, Good Olfactory, Grutness, Jc37, Jkudlick, Johnpacklambert, Justus Nussbaum, Lugnuts, Mvqr, Namiba, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, RevelationDirect, SMcCandlish, Thryduulf, Timrollpickering, and WilliamJE: recent CfD participants citing WP:OCVENUE.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Per my comments in the section above, the venue is a defining characteristic for many articles about events. No good reason for this restriction has ever been given. Toohool (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question - Is the primary reason for this, concerning sports venues? - jc37 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose no good evidence has been presented that the venue is defining for most events. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It just seems unnecessary. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose most events are not defined by their venue. More often than not, the venue is trivial.--User:Namiba 05:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Venue often is defining. The examples of the Wimbledon tennis championships were cited above and events with "at the Hollywood Bowl" in their title. In practice few categories will end up existing because few venues will host sufficient notable events to justify a category. And a venue category that did contain many events, like Category:Madison Square Garden, is no more unreadable than a city category that contains many events, like Category:Sports in Manhattan. Furius (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose abuse of process: WP:RFCNOT requires decisions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. This lost at CfD. Repeatedly. As already noted above, this has been the guideline since at least early 2007, and has been affirmed several times this year, and 72 times since 2015.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @William Allen Simpson: There is consensus on the part of WP:OCVENUE that prevents Taylor Swift's national tour from being listed in 50 some local categories, so this proposal isn't an across-the-board rejection of the guideline. How many of those 72 instances were because a specific venue category was too large to navigate? - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @William Allen Simpson: I don't see this as an abuse of process or a violation of RFCNOT since this is not requesting renaming of any particular category. Rather, this is a proper RFC to determine if a new consensus exists to supersede the previous consensus. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - William Allen Simpson says it very well. What is being proposed is "categorisation by association" which has been disallowed repeatedly for years, in many many different ways. For example, you don't get categorised because you happen to know a celebrity. And so you don't get categorised because you performed at a particular location. Even if the location is celebrated or renowned. - jc37 09:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jc37: This would not allow categorizing a performer by where they performed. Elton John doesn't get categorized for performing at Wembley Stadium, but Night and Day Concert is categorized for having occurred there. Toohool (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lol. Then yes it would. Every celebrity's tours would then be categorized. Even if they don't get a separate article, they can likely get redirects. I really don't think you've thought this through. - jc37 06:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- What redirects are you talking about? You think editors are going to create redirects to Elton John for every concert he ever performed, just so they can be categorized, and those redirects would survive WP:RFD? Toohool (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- rofl - yes and yes. Spend some time around CfD. It can be quite the education : ) - jc37 23:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- What redirects are you talking about? You think editors are going to create redirects to Elton John for every concert he ever performed, just so they can be categorized, and those redirects would survive WP:RFD? Toohool (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Lol. Then yes it would. Every celebrity's tours would then be categorized. Even if they don't get a separate article, they can likely get redirects. I really don't think you've thought this through. - jc37 06:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jc37: This would not allow categorizing a performer by where they performed. Elton John doesn't get categorized for performing at Wembley Stadium, but Night and Day Concert is categorized for having occurred there. Toohool (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Allow but do not require such categories. The venue is defining in certain cases so there should be no prohibition on the categories, but this does not mean all such categories should be allowed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak support. Though I would hate to see a proliferation of such categories, I do feel that in some cases they might be useful - especially in the cases where venue is defining. Given that many sports events are already categorised in Category:Sport in Foo City categories, adding specific venues within cities doesn't seem a step too far. Grutness...wha? 10:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support It makes no sense that venues and only venues have a concern about being too large, the opposite of WP:SMALLCAT. The way we handle large categories is with subcategories and table of content headers, and that should be the case here. In fact, grouping events by venue will reduce the oversized categories of events in some cities, where most of these articles sit today. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question about Current Categorization Using Cities To look at an example, the World Wrestling Clash of Champions (2019) was a one-time national pay-per-view event that brought in out of town talent to Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. It's currently in the Charlotte city category with no controversy but creating a Spectrum venue would apparently be controversial. How is one location category more or less defining than the other? - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- (pinged) I'd prefer that events at a given venue be moved into a subcategory of that venue, e.g. Category:Events at Madison Square Garden. I think this would be better than adding events to the categories for the venues themselves, e.g. Category:Madison Square Garden. This would also allow categories for cities with several venues, such as Category:Sports in New York City, to be categorized by venue, which is allowed per WP:DIFFUSE. Finally, this would remove any concern that the venue isn't a defining characteristic of the event, since the event would no longer be categorized directly under the main category for the venue itself; instead, it would be categorized as an event that took place at the venue. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Events rarely are defined by their venues - it's usually the other way around, if anything. Nothing here truly addresses the arguments of WP:NONDEF that is true an overwhelming majority of the time, and I don't see a compelling argument for removing this paragraph to allow for the few exceptions. -fuzzy510 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support with the caveat that event categories for multi-purpose venues, such as Madison Square Garden, be subcategories of those venues' main categories; e.g. recategorize the various National Invitational Tournaments and Stanley Cup Finals into Category:Events at Madison Square Garden as a subcategory of Category:Madison Square Garden. I do not believe that venues such as Jiffy Lube Live, which exist solely for the purpose of hosting large events such as concerts, should require such subcategorization. Creating subcategories is an appropriate response to having very large categories. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. If we have cases where the venue is defining, then we need to identify what makes them so and codify an exception with a clear rationale for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. I assume I am brought here because of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Category:MTV Europe Music Awards venues. The reason why I noticed that category in the first place was because it was added to Brandenburg Gate. I don't think anyone is willing to say that the Brandenburg Gate is defined by its use for the (1994/first) MTV Europe Music Awards, especially since the MTV EMAs change venue every year. Also note that the following paragraph adds a caveat that reinforces WP:NONDEF:
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.
-BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Brainulator9: I don't think anyone's suggesting these article get put directly into the venues header category - if you look at the proposal, it is to allow for categories such as Category:Events at Brandenburg Gate to exist. It may not be defining for the venue to have held the event, but it may well be defining for the event to have been held at a specific location. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grutness: Such categories, I would imagine, would still run the risk of overpopulating a given page with categories, the very thing that WP:OVERCAT is concerned with. My concern is where exactly to apply such rules: must MTV Europe Music Awards be populated with (as of February 2023) 29 categories for each venue that has hosted the award show? Perhaps there's a way to avoid this, such as only putting the individual award shows in each category, but I don't want a proliferation of such categories if they're going to be applied in an arbitrary, inconsistent manner. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Brainulator9: ...and, as is clear in the original proposal and the other comments here, no-one wants that. If an award like MTV Europe Music Awards is held in dozens of venues, it clearly isn't defining for the event. But if the 2007 MTV Europe Music Awards were held in a specific venue, it would make sense for it to go into a category for that venue. It certainly wouldn't lead to overcategorisation of an article - as I said before, it would remove the likelihood of an article being added to a head category by having a venue subcategory. It would also remove the Category:Event in Foo city category, which the venue-specific category would be a subcategory of. So effectively it could reduce, not increase, the number of categories on an article. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grutness: the proposed change says nothing about a few Events subcategories. While that idyllic scenario is tempting to some, we are here because a few editors tested the system by adding hundreds of events directly to many venues, large and small, mostly sports related. If they'd added them to separate Events categories, nobody might have noticed. Instead, this is an attept to eliminate the guideline — after repeatedly losing at CfD, and earlier here. Reality check.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grutness: the proposed change says nothing about a few Events subcategories. While that idyllic scenario is tempting to some, we are here because a few editors tested the system by adding hundreds of events directly to many venues, large and small, mostly sports related. If they'd added them to separate Events categories, nobody might have noticed. Instead, this is an attept to eliminate the guideline — after repeatedly losing at CfD, and earlier here. Reality check.
- @Brainulator9: ...and, as is clear in the original proposal and the other comments here, no-one wants that. If an award like MTV Europe Music Awards is held in dozens of venues, it clearly isn't defining for the event. But if the 2007 MTV Europe Music Awards were held in a specific venue, it would make sense for it to go into a category for that venue. It certainly wouldn't lead to overcategorisation of an article - as I said before, it would remove the likelihood of an article being added to a head category by having a venue subcategory. It would also remove the Category:Event in Foo city category, which the venue-specific category would be a subcategory of. So effectively it could reduce, not increase, the number of categories on an article. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Grutness: Such categories, I would imagine, would still run the risk of overpopulating a given page with categories, the very thing that WP:OVERCAT is concerned with. My concern is where exactly to apply such rules: must MTV Europe Music Awards be populated with (as of February 2023) 29 categories for each venue that has hosted the award show? Perhaps there's a way to avoid this, such as only putting the individual award shows in each category, but I don't want a proliferation of such categories if they're going to be applied in an arbitrary, inconsistent manner. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Brainulator9: I don't think anyone's suggesting these article get put directly into the venues header category - if you look at the proposal, it is to allow for categories such as Category:Events at Brandenburg Gate to exist. It may not be defining for the venue to have held the event, but it may well be defining for the event to have been held at a specific location. Grutness...wha? 02:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose For most events the venue is not defining. There is also the complication that some events are split over many venues either across years or across matches in an event. --Mvqr (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the "Oppose" iVotes disagree with allowing events to be categorized by a single venue and I appreciate those perspectives. A few of the Oppose votes are against putting travelling/reoccurring events in many venue categories but I don't think that's the intent of this proposal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment [I'm only here because I was pinged because of a 2016 CfD I commented on—not exactly "recent".] What I'm not clear on is what the question is that would be answered by having categories such as "events at Wembley Stadium", or "events at Mount Smart Stadium". I know that the latter is sometimes hired for large weddings. Is there a risk of cruft being added to these categories, if they become allowed? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Beeswaxcandle: It answers the same question as any other category I suppose, what articles do we have on topics that share this fundamental characteristic? A venue may have hosted lots of non-notable events, but those events wouldn't be in the venue's category because the articles don't exist. They still have to satisfy WP:N. Category:Events at Mount Smart Stadium can be thought of as just another more specific category to diffuse articles from Category:Events in Auckland. Toohool (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I see a lot of focus on Madison Square Garden. But you all do realize that this will apply to every sports stadium (amateur and professional), outdoor field, theatre, movie theater, casino, airport lounge, cruise ship, etc., right? And the events thereof could thus be one night events or long term engagements, celebrity tours, book signings, art exhibitions, archery exhibitions, renaissance fairs, and many many other things. If this passes, enjoy your Pandora's Box... - jc37 06:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Total non sequitur. If that were true, then categories like Category:Events in New York City would already be awash with those sorts of things. Event articles still have to meet WP:N. Only a tiny percentage of venues could ever have enough articles to satisfy WP:SMALLCAT. Toohool (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, because this (Venues by event), and Intersection by location, among other things, exist. - jc37 23:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're talking about a categorization guideline here, not a notability guideline. Changing this guideline will not allow the creation of articles or redirects on non-notable events. Toohool (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I hate to break it to you, but it's not uncommon that - in practice - there isn't a lot of separation between the two when it comes to categories. - jc37 05:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- We're talking about a categorization guideline here, not a notability guideline. Changing this guideline will not allow the creation of articles or redirects on non-notable events. Toohool (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, because this (Venues by event), and Intersection by location, among other things, exist. - jc37 23:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Total non sequitur. If that were true, then categories like Category:Events in New York City would already be awash with those sorts of things. Event articles still have to meet WP:N. Only a tiny percentage of venues could ever have enough articles to satisfy WP:SMALLCAT. Toohool (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support These categories could certainly useful, as the locale is a defining aspect of some events. We shouldn't go overboard though; this type of categories should only be considered for significant, well-known locales (e.g., Times Square) that frequently host events. Otherwise we will end up with hundreds of WP:SMALLCATs, like Category:Events at Fragrant Hills Park. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Definingness and spoilers
@Deiadameian and I just had an exchange about whether Death on the Nile (2022 film) belonged in the category Category:Uxoricide in fiction and although I think it does not, they raised an interesting point about whether a characteristic might still be defining even though it is not commonly and consistently described as such, if the reason for sources not to describe it that way is because of the convention to avoid spoilers. In other words, could spoiler-avoidance be a legitimate reason for a defining characteristic to be unable to pass the “commonly and consistently” test, and if so what additional test might we use to determine definingness? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, because Wikipedia is not censored. That a plot point is not emphasized in sources that respect spoilers does not weigh against definingness — and many film reviews do not — and in fact any details that involve a "spoiler" are likely to be plot-significant enough to support definingness. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but even non-spoiler-free sources will almost always avoid elevating plot details to a characteristic of the film when introducing it in “subject is adjective noun” form, even if they discuss that plot detail freely in their analysis. Are you suggesting something about plot-significance as an additional piece of guidance for determining definingness? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Unexplained revert
On 08:38, 5 June 2023, User:Jc37 did revert my edit that I made moving "examples to avoid looking like hatnotes, per WP:LEGITHAT". The revert was not properly explained, only stating, "undo removed text", which is inaccurate, because I moved text, not removed. Maybe Jc37 didn't see that I had just moved the examples to later on the paragraph? The way they are is confusing, they actually look like hatnotes, and I think they serve better by being properly placed after the guidance not before. Usually examples are provided after the fact not before. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I saw that, and understood that. If removal of text was unintentional, then I suggest that you may want to go back and look over your edit.
- If you were just moving the examples, while not changing or removing text, I wouldn't have reverted. - jc37 05:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you pinpoint your objection specifically please? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Though that's part of the issue. You did such a large edit, it's apparently not simple even for you - who did the edit - to tell what you did.
- If you do it again, I suggest that you might want to do it in smaller chunks next time.
- Anyway, after seeing EPON, I decided it wasn't worth trying to find more, and just reverted.
- So to start with, you might want to take a look at EPON. - jc37 06:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's the only thing that I accidentally removed. You do have a point. Do you have any advice on the size of editing chunks in general or do you have some essay or info page in mind? I used to publish edits by paragraph or sentence but then I decided to just publish organically when I felt the edit was complete. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think you can use your judgement and play it by ear.
- Though typically if you have to scroll more than a page when looking at the diff in preview, it might be too much. It varies by person, and what you're doing. Sometimes one section at a time is best, and sometimes taking care of a single type of thing over the whole page is better. It just depends.
- If the edit gets to be bigger than you can easily parse, then splitting them up is probably a good idea.
- Because it may be difficult to tell changes when looking at difs of large chunks of moved text, when I move a large amount of text, I typically do not also edit the text in the same edit. and I usually make a point to note that in the edit summary: "moving X due to Y - no text was changed."
- I hope this helps. - jc37 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's the only thing that I accidentally removed. You do have a point. Do you have any advice on the size of editing chunks in general or do you have some essay or info page in mind? I used to publish edits by paragraph or sentence but then I decided to just publish organically when I felt the edit was complete. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you pinpoint your objection specifically please? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
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)