Wikipedia talk:Categorization

See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

List “hierarchy”(?) of categories

Hello, could you please tell me how to sort categories in the correct order at the footer of a page, if there is such a thing? Or is there a guide page I can consult? Many thanks. ChrisAdair (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisAdair: MOS:CATORDER says Eponymous categories should appear first. Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.

You don't say which page this concerns, so I can't make suggestions. But an article that I created fairly recently is Cambrian Railways 4-4-0 locomotives. From the article title, we have three key elements: (i) Cambrian Railways; (ii) 4-4-0; and (iii) locomotives. There is no category covering all three of these at once, so I looked for categories for the overlap of any two of the three elements: Category:Cambrian Railways locomotives exists, as does Category:4-4-0 locomotives, so I put those first. There is no category covering the other combination (Cambrian Railways 4-4-0), so I skipped that. Next, I looked for other things mentioned in the article for which a category exists, and found those for the year of introduction (which I added chronologically) and also the manufacturers (which I also added chronologically), so put those in next. Lastly came what might be called "miscellaneous" categories - Category:Scrapped locomotives and Category:Standard gauge steam locomotives of Great Britain, which I added alphabetically.

Anyway, some people try to sort the whole list alphabetically: but there is no consensus for this, see: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/Archive 4#re alphabetizing categories on the article pages; and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is great. Thank you so much! ChrisAdair (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Preventing unintended hierarchization

Is there an established way to prevent/reverse incorrect categorization of subcategories of categories named after people? E.g. a way to prevent Category:Actresses from Dayton, Ohio from being a subcategory of Category:State legislators of the United States via Category:Jonathan Dayton? Star Garnet (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Star Garnet: I don't see any of these three categories inside either of the other two. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not directly categorized as such; the tree here is Actresses from Dayton, Ohio → Actors from Dayton, Ohio → People from Dayton, Ohio, by occupation → People from Dayton, Ohio → Dayton, Ohio → Jonathan Dayton → Members of the New Jersey Legislative Council → Members of the New Jersey Legislature → State legislators of the United States Star Garnet (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jonathan Dayton should only be categorized as Category:Wikipedia categories named after speakers of the United States House of Representatives (and possibly other eponymous category holders). Dayton's personal categories belong to his article; none apply to his category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that Category:Dayton, Ohio had been put into Category:Jonathan Dayton instead of the otger way round, and same with the "History of ..." category. I've reverted both. PamD 08:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem still is that Category:Jonathan Dayton is in 5 categories that don't apply to 18 out of 19 members of that category. To illustrate: Jonathan Dayton High School doesn't belong in Category:Continental Congressmen from New Jersey. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct Michael. See WP:EPONYMOUS. DB1729^talk 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

New Jersey's at-large congressional district
Obsolete district
Created	1789 1801 1815
Eliminated	1799 1813 1843
Years active	1789-1799 1801-1813 1815-1843

Taking a step back, does Category:Jonathan Dayton need to exist at all? It feels sort of borderline to have a category that collects:

1. Articles about places named after him
2. Articles about his relatives
3. The majority of the category's pages, articles about elections in which he ran (sidenote: Do we really have separate articles for 1794 United States House of Representatives election in New Jersey and 1794–95 United States House of Representatives elections?)
4. Burr conspiracy (in which he was implicated)
5. New Jersey's at-large congressional district (to which he was elected)

That last page also contains this masterpiece of an infobox → , presumably constructed by the Wikipedia Cabal of Wikipedia Redundancy Cabal. FeRDNYC (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "First-run syndicated television programs in the United States" category

Recently I have noticed several edits of articles about television shows that removed "First-run syndicated television programs in the United States" and replaced it with "First-run syndicated game shows" (as in Juvenile Jury) or "First-run syndicated dramas" (where appropriate). Shouldn't the original category be left in place, since the new category does not mention "United States"? Eddie Blick (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes - this looks to be a very new editor who perhaps does not have that understanding, so would suggest addressing that directly with them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Nikkimaria. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Excessive ancestry categories for royals

Royals, especially Medieval royals, will almost always have a mother from elsewhere, sometimes a different place each generation. This leads to lots of categories. On top of this sometimes the statement of their nationality is questionable. We have many pre-1479 royals from the Crown of Castile in 4 or more Spanish people of y descent categories. Calling anyone Spanish that early is open to question, and that many categories bring defining is questionable. Especially when their ancestry is really part of a tran-western Europe royals order, not clearly belonging to any specific "ethnic" group. This seems like a set of categories that is imposing a later understand on people in a way that dies not make sense. These categories might make sense for some post-1700 or so royals, but I think we should exclude all royals from about that year and back from descent categories. They make progressively less sense as we go further back. I think descent categories are in some cases justified, but we have placed them on way too many articles where the information is not defining. In a number of articles it is not based on any text in the article itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: The examples you provide don't seem like they'd be in line with WP:DEFINING. Placing people into categories that sources in the article do not support sounds like the category version of original research. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

When to diffuse large categories?

See User talk:Clovermoss#SCOTUS case categories for background. Even if nothing changes in this specific situation, I think WP:DIFFUSE and WP:DUPCAT should be clearer about when they apply, because I've kind of become jaded over time that people can even learn how the categorization system works in any consistent way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I stated my position on the SCOTUS case categories in the linked thread. Although I disagree with Clovermoss about how the SCOTUS case category ought to be handled, I do agree with Clovermoss's observation that the categorization documentation does not adequately explain criteria for when categories should be non-diffusing. Frankly, I'm not sure I could make the argument that Women scientists should be non-diffusing based on it, despite it being the lead example. That said, I caution us to remember that categorization is socially fraught and a bad place for hard-and-fast rules, so attempting to divine an explicit set of criteria for it may not be a perfect path either. One issue that this has raised is just the fact that it is difficult (and perhaps impossible) for either Clovermoss or myself to refer to why past Wikipedians decided to make this category non-diffusing. Indeed, the talk page only shows a primitive non-consensus from 2005 on the same question. What if it's just inappropriate to label a category non-diffusing without an explanation/discussion on the talk page? lethargilistic (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that discussion about whether or not a category should be non-diffusing is a good first step because I do not like the cumulative impact of inconsistencies that happen otherwise. As for women scientists, that's the only example where I feel like I can understand why it's actually non-diffusing. Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories gives an explanation, while the content about Category:Rivers of Europe simply gives an example of what would otherwise be an overcrowded category and not why it's an inherently diffusable one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added a few words to make the why clearer, though [1]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think in most cases we should avoid diffusing a tree at all if it has less than 200 members, and maybe go bigger. Some examples. Since there are 197 current countries and more possible ones diffusing an occupation with less than 200 total articles by nationality will mainly lead to small categories and will invite lots of unneeded 1 article ones. With 50 states diffusing an American occupation Category at below 200 is also problematic and likely to lead to small categories. The same is true if diffusing by county in Texas with 254 counties. I wish we had better ways to avoid the 1 and 2 article categories that hinder instead of help navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Johnpacklambert: I suppose there's a difference in scale between a category that has 100 or 200 articles in it, compared to one with thousands (like the one above). I'm cautious of assigning any sort of strict numerical cutoff because that seems like it could cause issues with gaming. A good start may just be a few more examples (are you aware of any? You seem to be much more interested in categories than I am) where people have argued a lot about whether should be diffusing or non-diffusing and how people formed a consensus about what was "right". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is that for the most part every occupation has been diffused by nationality. Ambassadors have been hyper diffused so that we have almost every combination of x Ambassadors to y. As one example Category:Ambassadors of Benin to Germany has one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I looks to me like there are 22 articles in Category:Ambassadors of Benin (there is some overlap) with 24 sub-cats and 1 direct article. The largest category has 4 articles. This diffusion makes it very hard to use to navigate between articles. There are almost as many sub-cats under Category:Ambassadors as there are articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  It depends. It is not necessarily the case that diffusion must lead to a plethora of small categories. To take your example of diffusion by US state, the defining characteristic you are categorising may not be equally spread among the 50 states. There are not many citrus farmers in Alaska. Mhockey (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)