Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 4

message: I've posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, about overhauling how categorization works.  In a nutshell, I'm proposing that the creation of new category pages be restricted.  To create a category, you would need to first create a list and then nominate it for conversion to a category at CFD.  Only approved categories could be created by an Admin or a bot.  I'd appreciate feedback.  Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal posted at WP:CAT  

message: ==== Locations of specific events ====
:Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues
:Avoid categorizing the locations of specific events, 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.  For example, some very notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted many sports events and conventions over time; categories for all of these events would not be manageable.  However, this should not exclude the use of categories for general events (such as :Category:National Basketball Association venues).
Here is a first draft of the new guideline.  It looks like it needs work.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. The only part I'm a little confused on is the last sentence that says "this should not exclude the use of categories for general events...".  What is a "general event"?  The category example you provided of NBA venues is I think better described as an example where there are arenas that are specifically dedicated primarily to NBA events.  But even on that category you have some things like the Staples Centre and other venues that are multi-purpose.  So I'm not quite sure what the exclusion is you're trying to define. Dugwiki 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to indicate that categorizing arenas used for league games (such as NBA games in general) is OK but that categorizing arenas used for specific games (such as the NBA All-Star Games) is not.  I am still contemplating how to revise the above text to communicate this effectively.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: :Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues
:Avoid categorizing the locations of specific events, 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.  For example, some very notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted many sports events and conventions over time; categories for all of these events would not be manageable.  However, this should not exclude the use of categories for general events (such as :Category:National Basketball Association venues).
Here is a first draft of the new guideline.  It looks like it needs work.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. The only part I'm a little confused on is the last sentence that says "this should not exclude the use of categories for general events...".  What is a "general event"?  The category example you provided of NBA venues is I think better described as an example where there are arenas that are specifically dedicated primarily to NBA events.  But even on that category you have some things like the Staples Centre and other venues that are multi-purpose.  So I'm not quite sure what the exclusion is you're trying to define. Dugwiki 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to indicate that categorizing arenas used for league games (such as NBA games in general) is OK but that categorizing arenas used for specific games (such as the NBA All-Star Games) is not.  I am still contemplating how to revise the above text to communicate this effectively.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations of specific events 

message: ====Locations of specific events====
:Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues
:Avoid categorizing the locations of specific events, 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.  For example, some very notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted many sports events and conventions over time; categories for all of these events would not be manageable.  However, this should not exclude the use of categories that indicate how the facilities are regularly used for some or all of the year (such as :Category:National Basketball Association venues).
I rewrote the last sentence to indicate that "regular use" categories are OK but annual events are not.  Is this an improvement?  Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  --Xdamrtalk 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Draft

message: :Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues
:Avoid categorizing the locations of specific events, 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.  For example, some very notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted many sports events and conventions over time; categories for all of these events would not be manageable.  However, this should not exclude the use of categories that indicate how the facilities are regularly used for some or all of the year (such as :Category:National Basketball Association venues).
I rewrote the last sentence to indicate that "regular use" categories are OK but annual events are not.  Is this an improvement?  Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  --Xdamrtalk 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations of specific events

message: In light of the results from the great January '07 debate on categorization of actors by appearance in TV or film series, I suggest adding "actors by performace" as an example of overcategorization.  If other people (excluding Tim!) agree, I will draft something here.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "collaborative" aspect refers to the parts being categorized.  You could theoretically maybe do "Books by original publisher", for example, since there would only be one such pubilsher per book, or "Films by director" since there's usually only one director per film.  The reason "Films by actor" is problematic is there are numerous actors per film.  Dugwiki 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree : ) - I do think that we should just have a separate section for Actors by film/Actors by production. I can see it being slightly separate from performers by performance. (Especially since it's currently controversial.) As far as I can tell from the several previous discussions both on and off CfD, performers by performance has consensus; Actors by production only has consensus as actors by film; and creators by creative work needs further discussion. - jc37 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A couple questions... 1.) Why is Hamlet's soliloquy offensive? 2.) Can you link to this "great debate" of January? so far all I find is that actors should be renamed to cast, per quite a few CfDs. - jc37 18:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For #2, I presume you meant the January 25th discussion? Well, wow. that's what I get for being away from Wikipedia for a bit.  After reading it and the related DRV, it  seems that the result is to rename to "cast", and that Radiant is willing to delete any that are listified. I might argue that just because something is a list doesn't mean it also can't be a category. While I might agree that these categories should be deleted, I am concerned at how this is being implemented. - jc37 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that being a list doesn't automatically preclude something from being a category. However, there should be a practical benefit to the reader to having both, because there is naturally an increased maintainence cost to having both.  If the category isn't likely to be used by the reader and the list also provides as much or more utility, then there is little reason to have the category and it can be safely deleted.  That's the situation you have with cast lists, for example, and why you don't normally need or want to have both a cast list in the main article and a category with the same information.  Dugwiki 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: First, Hamlet's Soliloquy is not offensive; it just seemed to long.  When I said "offensive", I referred to other things which I prefer not to repeat here.  I apologize for not being more complete in my comments.  Second, Samuel Wantman has been listifying all "cast members" categories.  This will be nice, as the endless debates on "actors by performance" categories will come to an end.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I haven't actually listified any category.  What I have done is tagged all the categories in question with  and started a discussion at CFD talk about how to implement Radiant!'s decision.  I also quickly closed some redundant CFD's partly to get the question posted at DRV.  Radiant!'s decision was reviewed and the closing was upheld.  I am willing to speedily delete any category that has been listified, along with Radiant!.  I am still unclear about the process by which this should actually happen, and this is being discussed.  More input would be appreciated here. -- Samuel Wantman 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New overcategorization topic: Performers by performance 

message: As I noticed Hulk Hogan has 3 alumni cats as part of his huge list of categories. It made me think, are alumni categories needed?  Alot of the (wrestling) alumni categories at least: have list pages. As a side note: Hogan certainly needs some category cutting: 25 categories, with 5 of those being maintenance categories. RobJ1981 12:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Former alumni only" categories are generally frowned upon.  Categories about membership in an organization should include both current and former members.  My suggestion would be to cfd the categories you're talking about if they are, in fact, "former members only". Dugwiki 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the looks of it, all the wrestling categories are indeed just former alumni. But if the WWE alumni category (for example) had everyone listed: it would be a huge cluttered category. I don't think there would be a way to sort it. Seeing as how wrestlers come and go to WWE every year, subcats would be changed around all the time. One minute a wrestler retires, then the next he is back in action...and so on. WWE has been around since the 70s (even longer, if you trace it's roots back more), that's 1000s of people (if not more). I think the alumni list page works fine for the WWE case at least, so should the others just be listified?  I believe some of the alumni cats are lists, but not all. RobJ1981 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The frequent changing of "current" subcats is the main reason that categories usually don't distinguish between current and former members of a group.  Of course, all rules in Wikipedia have some exceptions, and perhaps WP:PW has some additional insight on this.  After all, their project are probably the ones who are most actively trying to maintain these categories. Dugwiki 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni categories: needed or just overcategorization?

message: I think that this CFD (currently on DRV here) could be relevant with respect to this guideline. Any thoughts? >Radiant< 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think list pages would work alot better for powers. RobJ1981 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superhero powers 

message: For what it's worth, I preferred the earlier language that included examples of the application of this new guideline.  Radiant's effort to simplify may have been too much of an edit.  (Also, something about it doesn't look right).  Please reconsider.--Vbd (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performers by performance 

message: I have begun a preliminary discussion over at the anime and manga Wikiproject about merging the redundant subcategories of :Category:Anime by genre and :Category:Manga by genre which are currently creating a situation in which a multi-genred anime and manga series ends up in the categories for action anime, action manga, comedy anime, comedy manga, drama anime, drama manga, science fiction anime, science fiction manga, etc. Since the result of these categories is a large amount of overcategorization, I thought this would be an appropriate place to crosspost. --tjstrf talk 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant discussion on condensing categories 

message: I took some time to find several of the CfD discussions which I previously had witnessed which caused me to originally propose Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Performers_by_performance, and several others since then.
I also refactored the sections, since while looking I found a variety of examples which expanded the sections.
The performers by role set of examples is lengthy... And there were quite a few actors by TV series or actors by film which I didn't add else the page would have doubled in length : ) - That said, I wouldn't mind paring them somewhat, as long as we retain examples of each type. Any thoughts? - jc37 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I pared them down somewhat, removing individual nominations that were included in group nominations (like actors who portrayed Batman, and actors who portrayed Lana Lang). However, I think the varied listings should be useful, since they are varied, and since these have been typical recreations... - jc37 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good, but there's no need to have twenty examples for that section when all other sections have two or three. Those, too, tend to get recreated at times. It's the idea that counts, we should not try to enumerate every instance thereof. >Radiant< 11:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, to a point, but considering how contentious these have been in the past, etc. I think clarity in examples is probably a good idea. That said, do you see places where we can pare even further? - jc37 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think we're fine for now. Thanks! >Radiant< 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good snips/catches. I also split the performers by venue into a separate section. - jc37 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performers by performance