Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization

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)

Thanks for your advice. Regards, 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, Thinker78 (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on an actual amount, either for "too small" or "too large". This is because the category system is a living tree (or set of trees), and so "one-size-fits-all" would be counter-productive.

We have had established categories with zero members (a rather uncommon occurrence) and categories with thousands of members. Typically, we try to use our best judgement, and when unsure, or if there's a difference of opinion on a particular situation, we try to talk it out.

I hope this helps. - jc37 06:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• The comments in CFD nominations frequently bring up 5 or 10 articles. In practice, categories with 5+ articles don't usually get deleted for WP:SMALLCAT. I have previously suggesting rewriting WP:SMALLCAT to specify an exact number to avoid new-ish editors thinking 3 is fine only to find out later it isn't, but finding a consensus for specific new wording of WP:SMALLCAT has been elusive. (Note that there is also WP:NARROWCAT to avoid making the categories choppy in the way that separates articles in non-meaningful ways even if they have 5+ articles, which I think is the issue with several recent nominations.)

As for what is too large, I have no sense of any consensus because, typically, editors would just create subcategories and not come to CFD. I do suggest adding a table of contents to aid navigation for desktop users for any category with over 200 entries, since that is the cutoff for going to a 2nd page.

And, of course, I second Jc37's advice to talk it out with other editors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert even after discussion

Hi. On 03:16, 10 June 2023, User:Carchasm made a complete revert of the work I had done in this page with the summary, "Please stop making nonconstructive edits to project pages". Not only it took me a while to do it, but I did it following the advice of User:Jc37 in the thread above, titled "Unexplained revert". Therefore, I am at a loss why Carchasm reverted. I am actually experienced making changes in policies and guidelines, therefore I believe Carchasm assertion is not only unjustified but belittling in an uncalled for manner. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is already being discussed here. - car chasm (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we create a Definingness article?

We have an article for the other 2 important tests on Wikipedia, Notability and Verifiability. N.B. Other important Wikipedia tests put into the comment section would be greatly appreciated, and please also discuss the Wikipedia:Defining article, as that contains the section Wikipedia:Defining § From Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics which transcludes text from the aforementioned Non-defining characteristics section of this article, including the text describing the two article tests and the test about “definingness” used specifically for categories. SNOCMDE (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)