Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 3

message: When we have the categories :Category:Judaism and :Category:Jews separately a :Category:Jews and Judaism and all subcats feel overcategorised. What do you think? --Cat out 05:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jews and Judaism sounds completely redundant with the other two.  I'd recommend putting J&J up for deletion at cfd. Dugwiki 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should be deleted with subcats. I tried CfDing Category:Jews and Judaism by country and Category:Jews and Judaism by city for cfd but those did not go well. A few (what appears to be) panic keep votes prevented deletion. --Cat out 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I didn't realize this was discussed in cfd last year.  In reading the discussion, it appears that the keep votes want to use :Category:Jews and Judaism as an organizational category to include both subcategories :Category:Jews and :Category:Judaism (obviously both those categories should remain seperate since one deals with people and the other with religious philosophy and related articles).  The analogy here would be that this is like :Category:Christianity being the parent category for both :Category:Christian people and non-person related articles like :Category:Christian history and :Category:Christian theology.  Looking at it that way, I can understand the keep votes for the parent category.  It's debateable whether or not such a parent is necessary, but it's not as appears at first glance a clear cut case of simple redundancy. Dugwiki 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with a :Category:Jewish organizations, :Category:Jewish history, and etc... they are restrictive to a single topic. I do not understand the point of :Category:Jews and Judaism. It sometimes covers history related articles such as the crusades and other times deli restaurants and other stuff. I haven't checked every article but whenever :Category:Jews and Judaism or one of its subcat is used, it is always complineted by either :Category:Jews or by :Category:Judaism or by both. For instance, I really feel :Category:Jews and Judaism by city is poor taste and very redundent. See what the parent categories are? --Cat out 07:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea of :Category:Jews and Judaism is to act as a parent category for all those subcategories. My guess is that no article, though, should appear in :Category:Jews and Judaism.  Rather, the articles should be placed in an appropriate subcategory instead.  If you spot articles in :Category:Jews and Judaism, you could probably delete that category tag from those articles and substitute a subcategory. Dugwiki 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are oodles of underpopulated subcategories which serve to no purpose. --Cat out 09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Jews and Judaism]] 

message: Here's another possible exception to the Arbitrary inclusion criteria, have a look  at Skyscrapers by height.  Here we have a case where any single cat, taken by itself, is arbitrary.  However, taken as a whole, it becomes a useful index category.   Thoughts? -- Prove It (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Radiant.  A category would only list the skyscraper's name.  But a list sorted by height provides exactly what the reader probably really wants - to compare the heights of specific skyscrapers against each other. Dugwiki 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skyscrapers by height 

message: What does the panel think of categorization decisions such as this?  It strikes me that so many categories make the bottom of the page less useful — this bird is apparently found in most African nations.  Is there a more economical way to keep track of this information?  Should each species be categorized according to every nation in which it's found?  I acknowledge that the categories, such as :Category:Birds of Nigeria, are useful and interesting.  Is there a solution, within the existing software? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African birds 

message: Have a look at the following categories and lists found using Special:Prefixindex:
*Flora of... lists (20 lists, 9 redirects)
*Fauna of... lists (20 lists, 5 redirects)
*Flora and fauna of... lists (6 lists, 3 redirects)
*Fauna and flora of... lists (0 lists, 2 redirects)
*Endemic... (20 lists - mostly bird lists, and several redirects)
*Fauna of... categories - 327 categories
*Flora of... categories - 249 categories
*Fauna and flora of... categories (none)
*Flora and fauna of... categories - three categories
*Endemic... categories - 2 categories
Eek, indeed! What is to be done? With such a large set of categories, surely there was discussion about setting this up, or did it just grow organically? Is it useful? Is there a WikiProject that has expertise to add to this discussion? Carcharoth 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna and flora, categories verus lists