Wikipedia:Categorization/Eponymous RFC

Draft RFC on an aspect of categorization. (For discussion to date, see WT:CAT#Eponymous cats.)

Background

Many articles share their name with a corresponding category: for example, the article France has Category:France. This category is called an eponymous category ("eponcat" for short).

The question

When articles have eponcats, how should those articles and eponcats be categorized? For example, should France, or Category:France, or both, be placed in Category:European countries?

Possible answers

1. The articles should be categorized as they normally would, and the eponcats should be categorized alongside them. (So both France and Category:France would be listed at Category:European countries, as article and subcategory respectively.)

2. The articles should be categorized as they normally would, and the eponcats should be categorized elsewhere. (So France would be listed at Category:European countries, but Category:France would not be, although it might appear in something like Category:European country categories – for a real example, see Category:Categories named after American politicians.)

3. The eponcats should be placed in the categories in which the articles would normally be placed, and the articles should be excluded from those categories. (So Category:France would appear as a subcategory of Category:European countries, but France itself would not appear directly in the latter category.)

Factors to consider

1. Appearance on the article/eponcat pages. If an article/eponcat is excluded from a category, then that category will not appear in the "Categories" section at the foot of that article/eponcat. This would appear to be a disadvantage of solution 3 (with respect to articles) and solution 2 (with respect to eponcats). Also if a mixture of solutions is used, then a confusing subset of relevant categories is likely to appear at the foot of each page.

2. Navigation from article/eponcat pages. As above, solutions 3 and 2 have the disadvantage of requiring an extra click to get to the parent category (from articles and eponcats respectively).

3. Appearance on the main category page. If solution 1 is adopted, there will be two parallel lists (of articles and of eponcats) on the main category page. This produces clutter and may cause the 200-item limit to be exceeded, preventing the category from being viewed on a single screen. On the other hand, with solution 3, IF some articles have eponcats and others don't, then there will be two disjoint alphabetical lists, making browsing more confusing.

4. Navigation from the main category page. Solution 1 has the advantage of giving one-click access to both articles and eponcats, although this may be outweighed by factor 3.

5. Logical consistency. If there are no eponcats present, articles are normally placed in categories which describe their subjects (articles whose subjects are actors are placed in "actors" categories, etc.), and subcategories are normally logical subsets of parent categories. Solution 2 is consistent with that logic; however, different logical schemes may prove equally valid.