Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Overcategorization page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Please note that any and all examples for addition to these guidelines MUST be sourced to specific Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussions. (Though that in itself does not guarantee addition to the guidelines.) |
 | Categories | |||
| ||||
Process for speedily deleting recreated categories
In the past, when I wanted to speedy delete categories that had previously been deleted at CFD, I would tag them as WP:G4. This didn't work perfectly though because the good editors who work Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion don't usually handle cats so I'd come here eventually to have them deleted but it did give me a process. Awhile back, @Liz: raised concerns that tagging with G4 could lead to WP:REDNOT if these were deleted there without first emptying them.
What's the right process for speedily deleting the categories below that were recreated against consensus after a CFD deletion? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz: There weren't any takers here. How about I tag categories with WP:G4 and then come here and ping you? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI Liz doesn't receive pings. I've processed most of these. The exceptions are: Category:Fulbright alumni -> given the contest on the talk page I'd prefer not to use my own admin tools, although I agree it meets the criterion. Category:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan -> since you have to nominate the subcategory anyway you might as well include the parent in the same nomination rather than speedy deleting. Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath -> I am not convinced this is eligible for G4. At the time you said
The only article in this category is that main article
, and the recreation has 4 articles, which feels different enough to handle a new CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)- Thank you! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- FYI Liz doesn't receive pings. I've processed most of these. The exceptions are: Category:Fulbright alumni -> given the contest on the talk page I'd prefer not to use my own admin tools, although I agree it meets the criterion. Category:Recipients of the Nishan-e-Pakistan -> since you have to nominate the subcategory anyway you might as well include the parent in the same nomination rather than speedy deleting. Category:Operation Grapes of Wrath -> I am not convinced this is eligible for G4. At the time you said
- Note that the Order of Tahiti Nui is now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz: There weren't any takers here. How about I tag categories with WP:G4 and then come here and ping you? - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Added disputed template to SmallCat
I started a discussion at the link above on SmallCat's status as a guideline. - jc37 06:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Suggested replacement for SmallCat
After reading Wikipedia:Merge for now and Should SmallCat continue to be a guideline, I suggest "Small with no potential for growth" be replaced with "Small with potential for growth" (not using SMALLCAT shortcut because that link has historically been used with the previous guideline).
A category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth, for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis. Also, if it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (rule of thumb: at least 100 members). This provided it has been a fully diffused scheme for years or at least half of its existing categories are not small. For example Category:Rivers by country, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Works by creator.
There may be some situations why a category is left with only one member. For example, an editor created the category and for one reason or another didn't keep populating it, the members were removed, etc.
Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) 20:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- No. For the very reasons that Smallcat was deprecated.
- We should be looking at quality, not quantity.
- As it turned out, smallcat was a "crutch", that allowed for not looking at what the "actual" issue with the category might have been. And was disruptively divisive from the very beginning.
- And other guidelines seem to be addressing this just fine.
- If you want to collaborate on a new/additional guideline, I think WP:MFN has potential. - jc37 14:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- "No. For the very reasons that Smallcat was deprecated." I read the relevant Smallcat discussions and my proposal was intended to address concerns there, for example, about arbitrariness. Can you point out what specific reasons you point out?
- What kind of quality and quantity are you having in mind? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- To say "small", you are counting members. That's "quantity". It in no way is an assessment of the "quality" of the category. - jc37 05:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This SmallCat guidance is intended to address quantity. To address quality there are other guidelines. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly. Which is why it was deprecated. - jc37 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I saw the relevant text.
Another issue with this, is that SMALLCAT was often about assessing quantity over quality. And that's probably not the direction we should be going.
- I think as with any other guidance it is about analyzing and making a balance. For example, a category can be of good quality but have only one member. Then this guideline would cover it and another guideline quality as well or consensus.
- In another case, if there is a category of bad quality and has one member, this guideline would cover only the numerical aspect so as not to be deleted only due to having one member. Quality or relevance would not be overruled by this guidance, because such variables would be subject to the regular consensus process, which would determine if it is deleted in other grounds, quantity notwithstanding.
- The objection about this guideline only covering quantity seems to be like MOS:BOLD only covering bold fonts and not length of paragraph, or MOS:FIRST only covering the first sentence of the lead and not the body of the article.
- I see nevertheless that apparently in the quoted text of your statement, you argue about quantity over quality. My proposal doesn't overrules quality by quantity. It simply addresses quantity without addressing quality. So it is not quantity over quality. This guideline addresses quantity and consensus would determine other issues, like quality. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- The question of quality, is what is discussed at CfD. Trying to resurrect SMALLCAT at this point, would honestly just merely be a "crutch" to bypass such discussion.
- Adding text for the sake of adding text is probably not a good idea per WP:CREEP. - jc37 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This proposal is not bypassing but rather is the next step about replacing the former guideline.
- I think I see what you are saying about quantity over quality. What is your opinion of this other version,
Unless there are other issues or concerns other than quantity (for example, quality)—in which case the regular consensus process applies—a category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth (for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis).[a] Also, if it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (rule of thumb: at least 100 members), provided it has been a fully diffused scheme for at least 2 years or at least half of its existing categories are not small (have at least 5 members). For example Category:Rivers by country, Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Works by creator.
In order to avoid instruction creep and avert the danger of undermining inclusivity in Wikipedia's ever-expanding repository of knowledge (that could also stifle the incorporation of new and niche topics), discuss categories as needed, specially in other cases.- Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 20:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC) 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC) 22:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 01:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute,
Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)There has been an ongoing desire, never reaching consensus, to apply a strict numerical threshold for SmallCat (jc37 evidence). Use of such numerical thresholds, even if phrased as a "rule of thumb" or similar such phrase, in CFDs is therefore not supported by the guideline. However, reasonable editors can reach differing conclusions about other elements of the guideline, including the potential for growth and whether categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.- @Jc37 what evidence did you submit to the arbitration case? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I saw the relevant text.
- Exactly. Which is why it was deprecated. - jc37 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This SmallCat guidance is intended to address quantity. To address quality there are other guidelines. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- To say "small", you are counting members. That's "quantity". It in no way is an assessment of the "quality" of the category. - jc37 05:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
To avoid the controversy of the arbitration ruling and for more consensus, I would propose for the time being an abridged version of my proposal above,
Unless there are other issues or concerns other than quantity (for example, quality)—in which case the regular consensus process applies—a category with few or even only one members should be kept if it has measurable potential for growth (for example, demonstrated by a PetScan analysis).[b]
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Categories don't help you navigate to articles that aren't created yet though; they only let you navigate to articles that already exist. Smallcat's focus on growth potential, in addition to leading to sincere editor disagreement, did not aid reader navigation which is the whole point of categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
@Thinker78: I've obviously thought a lot about Smallcat and am open to other changes. Specifically I contributed in support of WP:MFN, although User:Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw did the heavy lifting there. If you explain the problem you're looking to solve, maybe I can help. Are there some recent CFD discussions that you think should have gone differently maybe? - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ See WP:CRYSTALBALL
- ^ See WP:CRYSTALBALL