Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 2 October 2004

Second, amended version of co-ordinated policy description - please add POV to discussion page, not here before consensus has been reached.

This is a Misplaced Pages:policy thinktank article, "Categorization" section, proposed for approval via the RfC page

Special Misplaced Pages features for categorizing people

People by year

See Misplaced Pages:People by year for categorizaton by year of birth/death.

When creating a category that can be used for articles on people

As a general recommendation for categories on people, prefer to have the category names as gender-neutral as possible.

Example: instead of a category for "Kings" and a different category for "Queens" there exists the category of Category:Monarchs.

Other than that, please consider the following, depending on case:

"Business Card" categories

A "Business Card" type category is a category that is named after whatever people could in reality have on their business card.

Examples: "Carpenter" -> category name: "Carpenters", "Architect" -> category name: "Architects", etc...

Usually "Business Card" categories are not different from other categories, see general rules regarding categorization - and try to position the category on a suitable place in the tree of "people" categories.

Categories for persons, other than "Business Card" categories

Assume the newly created category is not problematic

... but try to avoid following pitfalls:

• Stigmatizing names: some categories can be used in a stigmatizing way: always try to find the most neutral and/or generic name.

Example: "prostitutes" is a better name for a category than "whores". "Sex workers" might maybe work even better for a category name, while more gender-neutral and better approaching "Business Card" style.

• Consider whether a list or other grouping technique would be more appropriate:
  • for very sensitive material (e.g. racial or religious categorizations of people)
  • for trivia (e.g. "dog owners" etc..., see also general trivia policies)
  • for categories whose members would require frequent notes to explain the reasons for each inclusion.

Wikipedians are divided whether categories can be used for such topics, and might propose it for deletion. Nonetheless: always follow your own gut instinct in this matter.

• Names that are too long or too short: generally short, clear names are preferred for categories. For non-"Business Card" categories it is possible to deviate from this principle for neutrality and clarity reasons, but don't exaggerate on length or complexity of category names.

• Unclear category definition: It is generally preferable that the category definition (on the category page) tries to exclude vague and/or non-NPOV cases. In many cases, only referencing to a wikipedia article explaining the term is not sufficient as a definition for a non-Business Card category. If the article you want to use as definition is problematic in itself, consider improving the article. Otherwise, or if that is not sufficient, write a definition of what goes in and what goes out of the category on the category page, with the reference article(s) as background information.

Example: "Atheist" can be used as an offensive term (like people living under a Fatwah are still today often called atheist by their condemnors, irrespective whether they consider themselves atheist or not). Some of the vague (and non-NPOV) edges of an "Atheists" category are about whether or not to include agnostics; about the unclear distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism (see atheism article), about whether only outspoken followers of atheistic beliefs should be named or everyone generally considered to be an "Atheist"... see category:atheists for how this is tackled by the category definition up till now.

Example (compare to prostitutes/sex workers example given above): when comparing the sex worker and prostitute articles it might appear that "sex workers" would give more category definition problems than "prostitutes": up till now there is only a category:prostitution, containing some people names, but that would not be a solution in the long run.

From the examples given above follows that finding a good category name for sensitive people-related topics is not a "mathematical" science, but relies on good taste, and more than often on a bit of creativity to find a good solution that satisfies all.

When assigning categories to articles on people

Business Card categories

Apply correctly, i.e. like for categorization in general.

Be however aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on persons than for articles on other topics.

Example: categorizing a politician in a "circus artists" category would give much more controversy than applying the "circus artists" category to whatever animal.

Non-"Business Card" categories

• No automated category assignation: categories of the non-"Business Card" type can only be assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, while a doubtful assignation can be marked). See also Misplaced Pages:Bots for a general discussion of the disadvantages of robotized operations.
• Note that for some "sensitive" categories it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is more an attempt at completeness (using the {{expand list}} tag as long as it is incomplete). This implies that especially for "sensitive" categories lists can be used as a complement to categorization.
• Always check afterwards (i.e. after saving the article) whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. In order to avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point an inoffensive. Rather create a new category that serves better what you want to communicate, than use an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article. Improving category definitions might also help in this stage.
• Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterise this person".

When reading the encyclopedia and experiencing a categorization as problematic

A "Business Card" type category

Probably the problem is only an "incorrect" categorization: remove the category and/or apply a more correct category to the article.

If nonetheless the categorization is both "correct" and "Business Card style", but still experienced as problematic, list it here:

1. Category:People by surname: see discussion going on at CfD (topic of 10 september 2004) - . See also Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Non-Wikipedia_categorization_systems
2. ...

A non-"Business Card" type category

• Accuracy:
  • If a category assignation is factually incorrect, remove the category from the article and replace it (if applicable) with a correct category.
  • If the category name has an obvious typo, or has an obvious and unneccessary redundancy with another existing category, do what you should do with any other category in such case.
• Appropriateness - other improvements:
  • If the problem is not about accuracy, but about an "(in)appropriateness" for a single article to be in this category, you can remove that categorization from that article, but also consider the following:
    • check whether you can solve (part of) the problem by making (a) better category definition(s);
    • if still needed, find/create a more appropriate category, for re-categorizing this single article.
  • If it seems clear to you that there are more articles to which this category is applied "inappropriately", add the {{SCD}} dispute notice to the bottom of the text of the category description. Allow some time for this notice to take effect - possibly help with some manual recategorization (if you are familiar with the topics of the articles to which this categorization was applied). Remove the "dispute notice" after some time, if the use of this category seems OK again.
  • If you have a proposition for a better name for the category and/or a proposal for a wider re-arrangement of the categorization scheme and/or if you see a more general contradiction with wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding this category, participate in and/or post new discussions on the discussion page of the category. Consider whether you can invite more people that might be interested, to take part in the discussion, e.g. by leaving messages on their user talk pages (check e.g. discussion page of the category and history tabs to find out who might be concerned by this category - also try to contact project people if the category is part of one or more wikipedia projects).
  • If there's no agreement within a week or so: you're in the middle of a conflict-like situation: see wikipedia:dispute resolution for what to do next. When reaching the "voting" (or "poll") step, wikipedia:categories for deletion is the usual platform to proceed with such vote.

• People
• Categorization
• Policy thinktank