Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Archive 1 (2004–05) Archive 2 (discussions begun 2005 – June 2006) Archive 3 (July 2006 – June 2007) Archive 4 (July 2007 – December 2009) Archive 5/Mac and Mc Archive 6 (Jan - Dec 2010) Archive 7 (Jan - Dec 2011)

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

This is what it says:

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.

In my opinion, this rules defeats the purpose of having categories at Wikipedia completely:

Does this mean that a person's categories should change frequently depending on what makes them notable at a particular time in their lives? Isn't it of encyclopedic interest to find others that belong to the same category even if this is not what makes them notable. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about DEFINING, not notability. And, defining usually doesn't change that much over time - so if someone had 10 articles written "Joe, a famous waiter" - and then later Joe became a famous actor, he should still be in the Category:Restaurant staff category, as this was DEFINING for him at one point. And no, it is not encyclopedic to note that many people once worked as a waiter - when I searched in "living persons" + "waitress", I found around 800 bios roughly of actresses, singers, poets, writers, journalists, porn stars, and others, who once worked as a waitress. This is not at all defining however.

FWIW, relevant CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_3#Category:Waitresses --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE is both important and specific. For clarity, policies and guidelines should avoid the terms 'notable' and 'notability' except in that specific sense. The provision quoted here is too strong; "not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right" suggests that a wikipedia biography of the counterfactual lawyer without acting career would be appropriate.

'Noteworthy' and 'noteworthiness' would be an improvement and formally sufficient but I suppose we can do better. --P64 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think our example is horribly worded and not very good. Lets say there is a person Simon Crowman, he gets a law degree at 23, passes the bar, practices law for a year, then goes to Hollywood, makes it big starting in "Batman vs. Superman" and a bunch more films, and we create an article on him. I would say there we do not need to categorize him as a lawyer. However what if we have Judith Miller, who acts as a teenager, and retires at age 19. She has really big roles, including as Robyn in the above mentioned film (like Robin, but only female), and then she gets a law degree, is a lawyer for 30+ years, but never to the point where she gets more than passing notice. I would say we should categorize her as a lawyer because being such is defining to her. I think we need to figure out how to explain this better. Someone does not need to become notable for doing something, but their either have to become notable for it, or have it be defining to them. There is no magic number of years in the procession. For example if Mr. Crowman had had a short but fast career as a football player, enough so that he was notable for being such, then went and go a law degree, but the day before he was thinking of going to the audition for his part in "Batman vs. Superman" was killed in a car crash while on his way home from the court house where there was the hearing on the one case he ever did, defending someone accused of mortgage fraud, would we classify him as a lawyer. Probably. Yes, if he lives, and actually did another case in court defending an accused shoplifter, but then spent 20 years as a major actor, we would probably answer no, his very short 7 months practicing law does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  
  

But there are guidelines and then there is practice. For example, every rapper (or any musician, really) who has ever had a cameo in a film is categorized as an Actor. It is certainly not their "defining" identity (which is a subjective opinion, any way). But if you start deleting them from categories of Actors, you will face opposition because Editors who are fans want the artists' creative activities to be acknowledged in this way.

So, the larger question is when faced between Wikipedia guidelines vs. the practice of a sizable group of Wikipedia Editors, who is correct? I gather that most of the regulars at CfD would opt for the guidelines...but the guidelines reflect the opinion of the Editors who wrote them. They are not a revelation from on high. I think the actual practice of Wikipedia users, when it is practiced by a substantial number of users, should be at least as important and often more important than abstract principles of categorization.

Wikipedia was built to be flexible, to change as knowledge changes. It's not the Library of Congress, it doesn't just accumulate more facts, it evolves. People change and Wikipedia should change to reflect common practices among its Editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current example looks OK to me; does anyone have a suggestion to improve it? I disagree with JPL's "we should categorize her as a lawyer because being such is defining to her" - being a lawyer may be defining to her, but (unless she is notable as a lawyer) then it's not defining for categorization in an encyclopedia. There are many characteristics (e.g. being married, being a parent) that may be very important to the person themselves, but aren't that important encyclopedically (may be OK to mention in article though).

The current guideline is often/mostly followed - e.g. Clint Eastwood isn't categorized as being a golf caddy. That some editors stretch things a bit is no reason to throw away the guideline (it'd be like abandoning road speed limits just because some drivers often exceed them). DexDor (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DEFINING and NOTABLE intersect - something is notable is people note it - so if someone was writing articles about her as a lawyer, this becomes defining for her. Note that we aren't equal in the application of categories, but defining usually comes in more clearly when we're speaking about jobs (vs. where X is from). I don't think we should categorize by every job a person held, rather only jobs they held that were significant and noted. That's why all actors and musicians aren't in waiter categories, even though many started out that way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying that guidelines weren't useful or should be ignored (and definitely, not thrown away). I was just arguing that we take into consideration the way Editors use categories along with the guidelines. I am 'not saying that any Editor can make up whatever categories they want (that would be a straw man argument that I never proposed). I'm arguing against the view that the guidelines are fixed, absolute and never change. That's clearly not how they are written (see my comment below) and not what the Editors who wrote them intended. If they did, the language would be stronger than it is and wouldn't be so vague and prone to subjective decision-making.

I'm also not saying that people should be categorized according to any random aspect of their life. I wouldn't even agree that famous actors should have a Waiter/Waitress category applied, if they had that job when they were young. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think here you're looking at the default "community" consensus as played out across thousands of articles vs the consensus of categorization-fields like those haunting this page. It's an interesting question - if 90% of articles violate one of our guidelines, are the articles wrong, or are the guidelines wrong? There's no easy answer to this question. In some cases, we are pretty firm about saying "This is the consensus guideline, if you want to go against it, give an IAR excuse or go change the guideline" whereas in other cases, we are much more flexible. Having identified a particular issue here, if you see a disconnect between guidance as written and as practiced, why not propose changes to the guidance that capture better what you think the current consensus is? Of course guidelines can change - but there is nonetheless a strong lobby here against over-categorization (we even have a whole page devoted to overcategorization). Ultimately, categories are navigational aids to help users find like articles, and I really think we would not be helped by having thousands of waiters vs the few that are there and truly *are* notable for being waiters, as one example. At the end of the day, we should measure all categorization efforts on whether they are likely to help or hinder the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over our actual usage, I would say we are not following the directive of the by place category. We start off with "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This seems to suggest we should not put Mike Lee (U.S. politician) in Category:People from Mesa, Arizona since although he was born in Mesa his family moved away when he was under 2 years old. Yet my removal of Lee from the Mesa category was reverted and I was told "The consensus is a person being born in Foo has always qualified for being categorized 'People from Foo'." by User:WilliamJE where is this consensus?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would not call the recommendations on this page to be "directives". They are guidelines. According to the tag at the top of the page:

"This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus.

"Generally accepted standard," "common sense," "attempt to follow," "occasional exceptions" and "should reflect consensus" all make these guidelines fuzzy, not written in stone. Not every Editor working in Categories knows or agrees upon the "generally accepted standard" which is quite realistic because not every standard is written down. And the people who argue differently might believe they are using "common sense" to disagree or that the categories they are talking about are "exceptions".

Second, consensus is a messy, messy affair, it is not the 10 Commandments carved into rock. Consensus depends on a) the individuals who chose to participate in the discussion and b) the understanding, Editor or Admin, of whoever closes the discussion and c) the consensus today might be different from the consensus in a month. Look at how attitudes changed about the Actor/Actress/Male Actor categories changed, from swinging in one direction ("Everyone is an 'Actor'") to the situation now where we have Actresses and Male Actor categories in almost every instance. Bottom line: Practices "we all agreed to" might have changed because the "we" has changed...some Editors will no longer be active and new ones start participating. And sometimes, when pressed, the "we" turns out to be less than a dozen people and doesn't reflect a wide-spread consensus, just the opinions of the most active Editors at the time the question is posed.

Finally, Editors who are coming to respond to a notice about a CfD or have other questions about categories should not be expected to know everything about categorization. They are responding to a particular category or issue that concerns them. It often happens that categorization guidelines are mentioned in the nomination which is great but this doesn't always happen. And, unless they are disruptive, the participation of Editors new to CfD should always be welcomed, whether they show up for one CfD discussion or every day.

Please note, these points aren't directed to any person, just to the process of CfD and the guidelines that are used. I'm sorry if they sound too WP:Pointy. I just believe that, in their wisdom, the people who crafted these guidelines purposely made them flexible knowing that opinions about correct practices can change over time. And they do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another by place question. Should we categorize an historical figure with residing in a place that was not recognized as a separately-named entity at any time during their lifetime? As far as I can see, the Categorization of People guidelines are silent on this issue, but my instinct would be to avoid such linking. Otherwise, for consistency, Angela Merkel would be identified as being from Prussia, and Jesus should be listed among Israeli Jews.

The current issue, discussed here, concerns a category reversion dispute about Leland Stanford, Jr, who (probably) spent time as a child residing near the future city of Palo Alto, California. The city was not established until several years after his death at age fifteen, and the actual location of the Stanford residence was not incorporated into the city until over half-a century later, which was long after the house itself had been destroyed. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jxm Your Merkell example is different from your Stanford example. With Merkell, you are asking if a "past" category is ok. With Stanford, you are asking if a "future" category is ok. As you mentioned, the Merkell example is not ok.

The Stanford example has a "depends" attached. If somebody lived in the British Isles during Roman times, they wouldn't be included in People from England. As the difference time gets closer or the association to a place gets stronger, then it can become ok. If you died in 1720 at New York City are your an American? Yes, even though there was no notion of "America", it was all colonies. If you died in Seattle, Washington in 1850 are you from Oregon or Washington? Washington Territory was split from Oregon in 1853 and was originally called Columbia. Yes, you would be from Washington, not Oregon. Did Stanford live in the future Palo Alto and is he associated with the city? Then it is a strong yes. Bgwhite (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea that closer proximity in time should strengthen the potential for future categorization. Perhaps we should consider including a comment about that in the guidelines.

With regard to the specific Palo Alto category question, I think there's probably a reasonable argument for both Stanford parents to be associated with Palo Alto, even though neither actually lived there. As for their son - I can see no justifiable connection at all. jxm (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jxm About Stanford Jr... Looks like he lived in San Fran and Sacramento, so he should have "from" categories for those two cities. Palo Alto is a hard one. I can see an argument made for either way. This could be a case where the association to a place is stronger than the time lived there. I wouldn't put Santa Clara County. It is is either Palo Alto or nothing. Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there had been a RfC on this topic in 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons. The consensus was:

As noted quite well through this RfC, BrownHairedGirl's comment can sum up quite a bit of this RfC in the sense that there is no "one-size-fits-all solution". This RfC was more general to get opinions on the inclusion of categorization of people. The consensus is that it's a complicated one to answer, and is why we have guidelines, not policies in place, because we need room for discretion. reliable sources and consensus are key to each individual situation that we evaluate to decide if the inclusion is right or not. With this RfC being so general, if it were to continue, it should probably continue on the talkpages of individual policies due to the consensus achieved here

So, this is pretty far from written in stone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many creative professionals have produced enough notable works to warrant the creation of a category for the works; the issue that prompted this question is architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe (died 1820) and Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures, although comparable categories exist for many other architects, singers, authors, etc. Is it appropriate to put the creative professional in the category for his own works, assuming that no parent category (e.g. Category:Stephen King) for the professional exists? For example, Latrobe isn't in the category for his works (he didn't design himself, and he's not a building or structure), but it could be argued that we should include him in the category because it's important to have his own article categorised together with articles about topics related to him; presumably this was the rationale for putting 19th-century architect Samuel Hannaford in Category:Samuel Hannaford buildings. I know virtually nothing of professionals other than architects (the Stephen King example was provided by someone else at WP:HD), so I'm only guessing that this problem appears in other fields. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. The creator can be Linked from a hatnote in the category. We should try to keep set categories to contain only elements of the set if possible.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk),

Actually, this came up from the other direction: how do we get readers of the biographical article to know about the category? See my original WP:HD request for more context. I'm familiar with templates such as {{Cat more}} and am happy to use them atop categories. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's appropriate, and practically necessary as explained immediately above. People who use the category page-count need to be alert to pages listed at the head or foot of the alphabet, which are different in kind from the alphabetical listings.

· For someone with a narrowly eponymous category (WP:EPONCAT) that has subcats, it may be adequate to put the biography in the eponcat only. We do always put it only there, afaik. That one should be first in the category list at the foot of the biography, as for Ursula K. Le Guin#External links. Sophisticated users know and some others may suppose that that link is a point of entry to multiple aspects of our coverage of Le Guin (there are subcats and subsubcats of cat Ursula K. Le Guin). The biography should be sorted to the head of the list of Pages in the category --as Le Guin's biography and bibliography are both sorted in her eponcat.

· For someone without a narrow eponcat, the biography must be in all the broadly eponymous categories in order for the category list to provide navigation, as it is for cat Samuel Hannaford buildings in his category list Samuel Hannaford#External links. Offhand, I would list it first.

· For an intermediate case see Anne McCaffrey#External links, where a navigation box (WP:NAV) dedicated to McCaffrey's works is displayed just above the category list. That navbox lists every page in her only broadly eponymous category Novels by Anne McCaffrey or in one of its subcats (which are not limited to novels). Probably it serves as well or better than to include her Novels cat (or Works cat, etc, if 'twere renamed) in her biography category list. The same goes for her bibliography category list Anne McCaffrey bibliography#External links --and would probably go for any plausible head article because any one would probably be in her navbox.

(The McCaffrey bibliography and Novels/Works category should be in her Works navbox, as they are for Le Guin, immediately below the navbox title. The Le Guin navbox should be in her bibliography footer Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography#References, as it is for McCaffrey.)  Done --P64 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--P64 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT#Sort keys instructs how to manage the order in which member pages (or subcategories, separately) are displayed on category pages. The 7th to 9th of 10 bullet points concern display at the head, before 'A', and the tail, after 'Z', of the alphabetical listings.

For example use [[Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures| ]] and [[Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures|*]] in the category lists at the foot of Benjamin Henry Latrobe and List of works by Benjamin Henry Latrobe to put that biography and that list in the category and display them under (blank) and (*) at the head of the Pages in category "Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures". --whereas Category:Benjamin Henry Latrobe buildings and structures now excludes the biography and lists the list under 'L'.

Last hour I "fixed" the display of Category:The Chronicles of Narnia, in my opinion --Subcategories and Pages, but not yet the preface or unusual set of three main pages. It may be a useful illustration technically regardless whether you agree, or know anything about the substance. --P64 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for works should not contain the creator (i.e. I disagree with P64). Similarly, categories for awards recipients should not contain an article about the award itself (I've seen cases of such categories holding just 2 articles - one about a recipient and one about the award). (1) Such categorization is inconsistent with the way WP categorization normally works (e.g. the topic "Xs created by Y" should be just about Xs created by Y; not about Y or X); such inconsistencies may make it harder for people to understand WP categorization. (2) Allowing the creator article to be in the works category in some cases (e.g. unless there's an epon cat or a list article) would add further complexity to WP rules (instruction creep). (3) This sort of categorization would mean the creation of one article/category could make another article ineligible for a category - that's not normally how WP categorization works. (4) There are other means to navigate to a category from the article about the creator to a category for their works (e.g. the article can refer to the category or by following a link from the creator article to an article about one of their works and hence to the category). (5) Categories are, in practice, primarily a tool used by editors rather than a navigation tool for readers (e.g. when viewing WP from mobile devices categories aren't usually shown). (6) The reference to the sort key guidance in the previous comment may give the impression that the guidance supports the type of categorization proposed here; it doesn't (see "Note: If the key article should not be a member..."). DexDor (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should an article about a modern Irish person named Seán Ó Murchú have

1. {{DEFAULTSORT:O Murchu, Sean}} or
2. {{DEFAULTSORT:Omurchu, Sean}} ?

IMO most books in English in Ireland follow #2, and therefore so should Wikipedia. See Google books search: o'brien index "o murchu" User:Bgwhite at User talk:Bgwhite#Defaultsort of surnames starting Ó argues for #1, with references which to my mind do not support the contention. jnestorius^(talk) 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as the editor in question twice refers to the "University Cambridge of Dublin", I find it hard to take him/her seriously. My gut instinct is to follow #2, per the phone book and Dictionary of Irish Biography. Just for interest, what is the current procedure for Mc, Mac (no space) and Mac (space)? Scolaire (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Scolaire's argument says I can't be taken seriously because I wrote the University's name wrong. Egads.
• Phone books are irrelevant. They don't follow standards.
• Mc vs Mac is: "Surnames beginning with Mac or Mc are sorted as they are spelled."
• Sources for {{DEFAULTSORT:O Murchu, Sean}}:

1. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), ed. (1996). Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogue (PDF). UBCIM publications ; new series, vol. 16 (4th revised and enlarged ed.). Munich; New Providence; London; Paris: K. G. Saur. ISBN 3-598-11342-0.. Publication uses University College Dublin and National Library of Ireland
2. Nic Cóil, Róisín (June 2011). "Irish prefixes and the alphabetization of personal names". The Indexer. Society of Indexers.
   The Indexer is the official publication of all English, German, Dutch and Chinese indexing societies and published by Society of Indexers, a professional body for indexers in the United Kingdom.
3. Library of University College Dublin — They have Ó (page 1) coming before O' (page 31) in their list of authors on their own website.
4. National Library of Ireland — They have Ó (page 1) coming before O' (page 117) in their list of authors on their own website.
5. The concise Oxford companion to Irish literature. Oxford University Press. 2003. ISBN 9780192800800.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check your own talk page before trotting out the same claims again. Not one of the sources you linked to support your claim that they make the space mandatory. Two of the three randomly mix O-with-a-space, O-with-an-apostrophe and O followed by another letter. The third deals only with names in the Irish language (where you don't see O-with-an-apostrophe or O followed by another letter) and merely says that Ó Murchú would be under Ó rather than M. Scolaire (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion is taking place here and not all over the place. #1 (UBCIM publications) does. #2 (Irish prefixes and the alphabetization of personal names) certainly does. #3 (Library of University College Dublin) clearly does. It has Ó start on page 1 and O' on page 31. #4 (National Library of Ireland) clearly does. Ó starts on page 1 and O' on page 117. #5 (The concise Oxford companion to Irish literature) clearly does. Neither #3 nor #4 randomly link names. 117 pages of Ó and then over a 100 pages of O' certainly isn't random. The pattern is very clear.
• "The third deals only with names in the Irish language (where you don't see O-with-an-apostrophe or O followed by another letter)..." The third reference (#3) clearly gives names of Ó and O'.... It has Ó start on page 1 and O' on page 31.
• No sources have been given to say otherwise. Please list your sources. Phonebooks do not count. Bgwhite (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, sources #1 and #2 state to sort Ó Murchú under Ó rather than under M; they say nothing about whether to sort it before or after Oakley or O'Brien. Your sources #3 and #4 are on-the-fly database queries using generic catalog software that has not been customised for Irish collation practices. To quote yourself from the earlier discussion on your talkpage: "don't look at a web page which was generated on-the-fly from a database. Sorting depends on what the default collation the webmasters set up (Mysql and its variants default to Swedish). You have to at look a printed or non-database generated web pages." That leaves your source #5, which is one book. See my earlier Google link for other books. jnestorius^(talk) 09:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• #1 shows it sorting with a space. If the space were not to be included, it would not be there. #2 spells out to sort with a space AND before 'O. #3 and #4 are databases generated by THE authorities in Ireland, that is different than a database by a book publisher. #5 is a book by Cambridge and it should be viewed as secondary. But, it does show that Oxford University Press does follow the same pattern in print form.
• The British National Bibliography from the British Library, THE source in the UK, does the same thing. For books written in Irish, Ó starts on page 30 and O' starts on page 143.
• On my talk page, I was saying to be careful as you don't know what sorting algorithm websites use. I would expect National Library of Ireland (NLI) to use one different from the National Library of Sweeden (NLS) or some book publisher. I would expect NLI to be based on Irish and NLS on Swedish. Big libraries use MARC 21, which is specifically designed (actually specifically messed up) for libraries. Book publisher websites use Mysql or other various general databases.
• No sources have been given to say otherwise. Please list your sources. Bgwhite (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quigg, Patrick J. (December 1967). "The entering and systematic arrangement of Irish names in catalogues, indexes and directories". An Leabharlann: journal of the Library Association of Ireland. 25 (4): 150. O'Brien can be filed after Ó Briain (ignoring the distinction between O apostrophe and O fada) jnestorius^(talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to chip in, without any sources, I'd say "O'Brien" and "Ó Briain" should both be sorted simply as "O'Briain" and "Ó Briain" respectively. Soring as "Obrien" or "OBriain" means names like this will be mixed up alongside with "Obama". Better to separate out "Ó" and "O'" names, me thinks. (Similar questions around "Mac" and "Mc" names to. In those names, the question is to default sort with a space or not, even if no space appears in the subject's own spelling of the name.) --Tóraí (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are often categorized by their descent. Are their any rules or guidelines on when to do this, and when not? Self-identification only? Going back X generations? I have read Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, but this doesn't seem to address the problem of where to stop.

The concrete examples I noted are Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant, Prince Emmanuel of Belgium and Prince Gabriel of Belgium, three of the children of King Philippe of Belgium. All three are categorized in multiple "descent" categories, the most striking being Category:Belgian people of Portuguese descent. Their parents are both Belgian, and Philippe of Belgium is listed in the category as well. His parents are Belgian and Italian, and his father former king Albert II of Belgium, is listed in the same category.

The parents of Albert II of Belgium were Leopold III of Belgium, and Astrid of Sweden. Her parents were Prince Carl, Duke of Västergötland and Sophia of Nassau, his parents were Albert I of Belgium and Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Belgium.

Finally, her mother was Infanta Maria Josepha of Portugal. Ah, the link is found. So, is it sufficient if one of your 32 Great-great-great-grandparents is from X to be labeled "of X descent"? I don't think this can be considered a defining or important characteristic of these people. Where do we draw the line? Personally, I would argue for grandparents, but opinions may vary of course... Fram (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it should be parents, no further, but perhaps in extreme cases grandparents. But definitely not further than grandparents. Otherwise this leads to category clutter. Ultimately we are all of african descent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this revert was hasty. The reason given "Unsourced" is untrue. Both names I added as non-patronymic/matronymic, are alreadly in the source for the sentence I changed (as I said in the edit summary). I realize now however that this might be thought of as a widening of a narrow exception. I just thought I was clarifying how things are done in Iceland and thought the exception should cover all Icelandic name cases.

[I thought this policy also controlled WP:Persondata. That may have been an error of mine.] comp.arch (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This policy does not cover persondata. They are two separate beasts. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there then no objection to changing/correcting this policy (on your part)? Please do so (or I can). If no one objects here I assume that meant consensus. Regarding persondata, I'll keep in mind that, that is different. comp.arch (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bgwhite on that. I spent several hours in the past discussing on the matter. As far as I recall WikiProject Iceland was also informed and there was a discussion there too. The current version reflects the consensus gained after this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with him on what? The revert or "This policy does not cover persondata" that is not a problem. Not discussing WP:Persondata (here) only WP:SUR that is unrelated. I'm new to this, haven't seen the discussion or any arguments except "unsourced" that is bogus. comp.arch (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are getting close to doing person attacks on my page and here. I reverted your edit as "unsourced" because you added material that *was* unsourced as you provided no reference. It was added to an already sourced sentence. The already present source did not back up your changes. You added material to MOS without discussion. You added material then used the addition to bolster your argument on another discussion.

Again, this is a discussion for sorting, not persondata. Magioladitis is saying to keep the status quo. Magioladitis was part of discussions held at WikiProject Iceland and here on how to sort Icelandic names. Bgwhite (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did not mean for this section (or anything on your talk page) to be a personal attack. Maybe I'll refrain from editing for a while. This is not important enough for me. I just wanted to know about these things and tried to fix an error. Probably there is some rule about changing the MOS that I don't know about. I guess consensus can't be assumed there. Some of the things you say I did, I did but in error. Other are misunderstanding, I guess we all, me included should reread *this* section. comp.arch (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should a person by included in a category by occupation after they leave that occupation (not necessarily retiring)? The specific article I'm looking at (and updating) is Russell Woolf who was previously an ABC radio and TV presenter, but has resigned from the ABC. Should he stay in Category:ABC News (Australia) presenters, Category:Australian radio personalities etc? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he's achieved notability as an ABC News (Australia) presenter (see WP:COP#N), he should stay in that category. Categories should be for permanent characteristics (e.g. having achieved notability in a field) rather than for indicating current status (excepting special cases such as Category:Living people for administrative purposes). Note: We don't generally use "Former <occupation>" categories for people (example CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we removed categories as suggested, then dead people would be uncategorised. That someone held a particular role or position continues to be relevant even when they no longer do so, though of course the article should include dates and sourced info about any changes. PamD 08:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 29#Category:Veterans of the Battle of Kursk. There's a general consensus to delete the categories in question (categorisation by participants of a given battle), but it's raised a broader question:

should categories like Category:Soviet military personnel of World War II contain all biographies of people who saw active military service, or just those who are notable for being military personnel?

The categorisation-notability guideline as written seems to suggest that it should be restricted just to those who are notable as soldiers; however, actual practice (certainly for the UK categories) seems to be to include anyone who had active wartime service (see, eg, the large Category:British Army personnel of World War I), and I'm not sure if we'd gain anything by removing these categories. Thoughts appreciated. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an historical person categorized in "Category:Feminism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminism, Christina, Queen of Sweden. However, I cannot find any articles under "Wikipedia Search" that offers step-by-step instructions. Can anyone categorize (if so, how?) or must an administrator be contacted to do it or a Feminism interest group contacted (again, how?)? As you can see, there are a batch of sub-categories. How does one known which one to choose - would "Feminism and history‎" be correct? I am confused! >_< Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category is terribly long. Do we really need such detail, and here? Could it be placed in a different guideline? I have trouble believing this is the only place where such sorting of names is discussed. But here we're talking about categorization but we spend 2200 words discussing the best way to sort the names. Could we at least trim it somewhat? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. See this talk: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#de, von, van, etc. I repeat what I said there "But yeah then there are all the sensitivities... ".

The General considerations section should at least be above this more technical section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more cleanup and reordering, for instance the bots converting lists in categories is less of an issue nowadays I suppose, so moved it down, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

• Whether or not the WP:DEFINING guideline applies to LGBT categorizations of people is discussed here: Category talk:LGBT people#Re-opening discussions.
• Whether or not the WP:BLPCAT policy applies to LGBT categorizations is discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality under discussion
• Whether or not WP:EGRS can be renamed to Wikipedia:Categorization of people/Sensitive categories is discussed here: WT:EGRS#Requested move 09 June 2014

I suppose all other updates I performed on the WP:COP guideline yesterday are uncontroversial. If not, discuss here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COP#N: Occupations only?

Background information: how come WP:COP#N was changed to only apply to occupations (instead of the example just being an example)?

• February 2013: in article namespace, someone reverts an edit of a previous editor who had referred to WP:COP#N
• Within 15 minutes: self-serving edit to WP:COP#N so that its application is limited to occupations

No discussion, no apparent consensus for the guideline change, and most of all: not thinking of consequences. WP:COP#N was written specifically with all kinds of contentious categorizations in mind (surely, nobody must have thought about freemasonry at the time). As for all sensitive categorizations, they were never exempt from this: WP:COP#N was invented with those in mind.

See Category:Freemasons for the current category definition. As the version of WP:COP#N that served until february last year is still quoted there, I can only conclude that Freemasons is perceived as a sensitive category. This makes also clear that there was never any consensus to exclude freemasons from WP:COP#N. Then, what happened to Frederick the Great? He is safely included in the sparsely populated Category:Monarchs who were Freemasons, probably less contentious for mere mortals who don't want to be associated with their more belligerent predecessors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis you're trying to do too many things at once. You did a bold page move that was reverted, so you need to wait for the page title to stabilize before going around renaming it everywhere else. As for COP#N, there is wide scale practice that intersection of ethnicity/gender/sexuality with a notable job is perfectly acceptable: in other words, the defining test is applied to the job, not to the intersection of job + whatever. Freemasons is sort of like a job, but it's also sort of like 'alumni of' as it's a sort of membership-of-a-club sort of thing, maybe that is a specific example we need to discuss and decide whether club memberships should be based on cop#n or not. Religion seems to be different - for whatever reason - my sense is that religion categories are only added when the expression of that religion is a notable part of their work. There are a great many writers who happen to be catholic but we seem to only cTegorize those for whom catholicism was important to their writing. Otoh, ethnicity, gender and sexuality seem to behave differently.

I think we should not expand the section on gender/etc here, in order to keep the guideline all in one place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In sum, we don't need to distinguish between job-like things and non-joblike things (and which of the two applies to freemasonry, Rjensen and Obiwankenobi appear to disagree on that while I couldn't care less): WP:COP#N as well as WP:DEFINING apply to both. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we need to be more explicit. There are not just a FEW categories which are automatically applied (eg birthdate, where X is from) - there are a great number of them - including things like alumni, awards, and, in some cases, membership in certain groups. We do have clear consensus that jobs should apply the WP:DEFINING test, but I'm not convinced that the same test applies to ALL categories put on people's pages - we have a number of exceptions, so we just need to identify what those are more clearly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COP#N applies to all people categories, no doubt about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish it was that simple. It seems so simple to just state that, but you have to look at HOW categories are used, and which categorizations are accepted without issue. For example, if someone is a novelist, and a woman, are they a) automatically added to "women novelists" or b) Only added if sources can be found that demonstrate that women+novelist is a DEFINING intersection for this person? Your answer seems to be b), but the broad consensus on this matter is a) - which goes directly against a broad reading of COP#N. We all agree COP#N applies to jobs - does it apply to alumni? What about to winners of awards? What about to members of clubs or societies? It's not an all-or-nothing proposition Francis, some categories seem to be all-included, in that anyone who qualifies can be put in, whereas others are more limited, and only those for who it is defining are added. So, if someone was born in new york and grew up in new york and spent most of their life in New York, even if reliable sources don't regularly mention this fact, they will be in Category:People from New York. That's just the way categories are used right now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COP#N applies to all people categories, really don't know what you're going on about. If someone is notable for being a woman novelist, you place her in the Category:women novelists. Really. Cogent is the word here.

Sensitive categories need not be all included, and the reccomendation, according to the WP:COP guideline, is to have a separate list that is more inclusive for such categories. As such that isn't the part of the wording of the guideline we're discussing here. You're referring to Not all categories are comprehensive (etc.), which isn't a part of WP:COP#N.

Category:People from New York has the template:catdiffuse template on top. So, I go from the supposition that the people listed there currently are notable for being from New York, unless they still need to be moved to a subcat. What is problematic there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, you're misunderstanding my critical point. Someone can be "notable" as a novelist, and also happen to be a woman - but she isn't necessarily "notable" as a "woman novelist". The same applies to someone who is gay, and is a novelist. They may not be "notable" as a "gay novelist", in that biographies of the person wouldn't say "Jim is a well known gay novelist"- in fact, his sexuality may not even be mentioned in the lede. The same again applies to ethnicity - someone might say "Julie is a well known novelist" and then much later "Both of Julie's parents were from China, and she identifies as Asian-American" - so should Julie go in "Asian-American novelists" or not? Your changes suggest no, whereas I point to the way these categories are used a strong consensus is YES. They key question is whether the intersection itself must be notable for the individual. (whether the intersection is notable more generally, and thus whether the category should exist, is a matter for WP:DEFINING and WP:EGRS)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, if someone is not notable for being a "gay novelist", don't put him in that category. See Category talk:LGBT people#Make non-diffusing?, I just added the example of Harold Nicolson who is not notable for being a LGBT writer, so he shouldn't be in Category:LGBT writers. Again, simple.

Other example: Virginia Woolf is not notable for being a Bisexual writer. She is notable for being a LGBT writer, also for being a LGBT writer from England. To derive the appropriate categorizations from that appears pretty straightforward to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal mistakes defining characteristics for characteristics that make the subject notable. A vast swath of our category structure is based on defining characteristics that are of very little relevance to the subject's notability. Most obviously, Einstein is not notable for being born in 1879, but it is a very defining feature of him. Very few historians that are women are notable for being "female historians" (they are notable as just historians). Similarly, place of birth can often be very little relevance to a subject's notability (like many people born in a maternity hospital, I have never lived in my town of birth). Defining attributes and notability are completely separate issues are far as current practice goes, so on that basis your proposition is not just controversial, it is a highly radical reworking of how categorisation currently works. SFB 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this is what WP:COP#N would read like (apart from the examples):

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 only by the reason(s) for the person's notability.

(bolding added)

Place of birth is in itself neither notable nor defining (in Wikipedia context). Nationality is defining, and is also included per WP:COP#N.

So neither for year of birth nor for place of birth is there any difference between WP:DEFINING and WP:COP#N

If a female historian is notable for being a historian she should be in the category historians (e.g. Geneviève Hasenohr). If the gender doesn't make a difference, then it is not defining, and she should not be in a female historians category either way (nor for WP:DEFINING, nor for WP:COP#N), same example: Geneviève Hasenohr.

Hope that clarified a bit. Notability and Definingness are not the same (I never said they were). On the other hand WP:COP#N is usually all you need to know about the WP:DEFINING concept when applying categories to biographical articles, because it is notable characteristics + year of birth + year of death + nationality, which are indeed a practical representation of the difference between defining and notable for biographical articles. You don't need to understand the whole complex paragraph in WP:DEFINING which I quote here:

Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative.

Hope you still can follow by the end of that paragraph. The simple formulation of all that for biographical articles is:

For biographical articles: Defining characteristics equals notable characteristics + year of birth + year of death + nationality.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, the simple fact is, your interpretation is WIDELY disregarded, thus we can clearly state that consensus lies elsewhere. To say that we should start removing women from "women novelists" because we can't establish that they're notable as women + novelist is ridiculous and would never meet with consensus. All we have to establish is "notable as a novelist" + "is a woman". The same applies to "notable as a musician" + African-American or "notable as an actor" + "publicly gay". The one exception I've seen is religion, whereby someone can be publicly roman catholic, but they are not added to "Catholic writers" unless their catholicism is an important theme in their works. I can't really explain why this is the case, maybe because the sexuality/gender/ethnicity identity crowd is more tag-happy than the roman catholics, I don't know, but there you have it. For sexuality, gender, and ethnicity, it suffices that the person identify as such, and then they are placed in any relevant intersectional categories - trying to sort this out on a job-by-job basis would be a mess - e.g. is someone notable as a gay writer but not notable as a gay politician? Is Jane REALLY notable as a woman novelist? during the woman novelist fiasco, a great many female writers were incensed that they were not simply called writers, so our some of our public wants it the OTHER way - e.g. no gender categories at all, but that didn't meet with consensus either. The arguments simply aren't worth it? This is longstanding, whatever happens to be written in one line of policy somewhere aside. The place "defining" is used in this case is to determine whether the intersection itself is defining - e.g. if "African American" + "Writer" is notable and studied as a group (as opposed to "Canadian-American + writer" and whether a reasonable head article could be written about African american writers. Additionally, your formula is incorrect - in practice, it is much more than location and date of birth that gets added automatically (regardless of "notability" or "definingness") - for example, alumni of school X, winner of award Y. The policy now is in need of help, but in the other way - we should explicitly spell out all of the instances where "notability" or "definingness" doesn't come into the picture, and it's a rather long list, but that's the way the categories are used and its better than the alternative.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to make this more complicated than it is. A lot of talk in the previous contribution, not a single real example where WP:COP#N (without the questioned addition) would be lacking in giving succinct guidance.

Copying from an archived debate regarding Jodie Foster:

I think it's clear where the consensus lies.

Is this consensus challenged? Really, I don't think so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Francis, that consensus is indeed challenged. You're using Jodie Foster, but that's a pretty bad example, since her coming out speech was so confusing for the world and the matter of which categories to place was the subject of a community wide RFC. So, yeah, very bad example, total edge case. I'm talking about tens of thousands of other biographies. I have never seen a "gay" biography where all aspects of their lives were not gay-tagged, as it were - e.g. I don't recall ever seeing a gay poet/musician who was tagged as a gay poet but not a gay musician, and if such edits were made I don't remember ever seeing those reverted. Most of my experience has been with women+cats or ethnic+ cats, but the same rule applies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cont'd

No problem if you want to challenge the consensus, you know the ropes --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. women+cats, ethnic+cats (& sexuality+cats, religion+cats): it is specifically discouraged to diffuse to such subcats following this incident, see WP:EGRS#General / no. 5.

Giving some examples on gendered musicians:

• Category:Violinists has no gendered subcats, makes no sense
• Category:Singers of course has gendered subcats, makes sense, for instance Category:Countertenors

Gay novelist/poet: Erwin Mortier, only a single LGBT cat, is a counterexample that multiple cats referring to the person's activities would need to be sexualized. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with both your approach here (eg I Francis alone can determine consensus) and your conclusions. I am well aware of the diffusion rules around gendered/ethnic categories, probably moreso than most. Finding a single person whose LGBT cats aren't fully filled out is a bad way to prove a point, and I'm quite sure if I added LGBT people from Belgium and LGBT poets to his bio no-one would complain. The lived consensus - ignoring a single discussion on Jimbo's page and focusing on things are categorized in the real world - is much more complex than you are trying to enforce here, and we should align the policy with lived consensus and not with 'only those things which are defining' + 2 exceptions - which if actually applied to article space would result in hundreds of thousands of categories being removed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one challenging the consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis you cannot use a talk page discussion about how to categorize a single individual and translate that into a proposal to change guidance. Also, as someone who is involved, you cannot properly judge consensus here - you are the only one arguing for this change. I've reverted your change since the occupational focus had longstanding consensus and reflects how cop#n is currently used. I would welcome a discussion of how to improve it and make a list of those characteristics for which we apply the 'relevant to their notability' test and which ones we do not. However just leaving it as 2 exceptions then everything else is cop#n is simply wrong. Your confusing style of argumentation, attempt to change multiple things all at once, and pasting of large swathes of text here has caused other editors to stay away.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To align the language with how categorization is currently practiced in wikipedia, I proposed the following change - for now the below is a draft, so please don't !vote yet, just comment on how to improve it first.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From:
"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 person's notability."

To:
"Occupations/jobs/roles and membership in clubs, and categories relating to stances on issues (e.g. "Critics of X") should only be categorized if they are relevant to a person's notability."

Standard categories:
A number of "standard" categories can be placed on any biography regardless of whether the characteristic in question is closely linked to the notability of the person. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Year of birth and year of death
2. The place(s) people are closely associated with being from (e.g. Category:People from New York)
3. Awards received
4. Being alumni of a school
5. Political candidacies
6. Intersections of characteristics - i.e. if the person is a woman, and a novelist, she can be placed in subcategories of Category:Women novelists even if "Woman" + "novelist" is not WP:DEFINING of her work. The same applies for intersections of nationality, ethnicity, and sexuality. The only exception is religion or other philosophical views; we should not intersect religion + occupation/nationality categories unless the subject's religion is relevant to their public life.

Discussion

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel that way, and I suppose you're unlikely to support this. (that said, this is a very snide way to reply to a good faith suggestion) However, having dealt with categorization of biographies for a very long time, and having de-ghettoized hundreds of biographies, I can assure you that this is standard practice. If someone went to a university -> alumni cat. If they are black, then they get "african-American" + "every other category they are in". If they are a woman, or a lesbian -> "woman" + "every category" and "lesbian" + "every category". Look at any of our featured articles, which get thousands of page views, with hundreds of watchers, and you will see the same thing, for very famous people, a LONG list of categories at the bottom.The main areas where there is resistance to adding new categories is (a) religion - e.g. not everyone who is catholic is so-categorized and (b) jobs/occupations/roles/club memberships - in this case, we apply the WP:DEFINING test - is actor X really known as a Category:Restaurant staff? Otherwise, the evidence and silent consensus of thousands of editors across tens of thousands of biographies is that most of these biographical categories, such as the ones enumerated above, are intended to be filled with everyone who fits, regardless of the extent to which it "defines" them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A great example is Ellen Degeneres - she is in the following categories:

Now, does Ellen really pass the defining test for all of these various intersectional categories? Probably not. However, she is clearly notable as a lesbian, and she is notable as several jobs, so she gets LGBT+(each job she has). That's just the way things work here. Trying to enforce something different is just likely to lead to lots of complications - e.g. "Yes, I know she's a woman, and I know she's a writer, but she's not really a "woman" writer, is she?" It's ultimately a waste of time. If we want to trim categories on bios, we should focus on eliminating jobs - which are numerous over one's lifetime, as opposed to trying to eliminate other things, which are much less so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think we should do:

1. Delete the "descent" categories (don't categorize by the ethnicity/nationality of the persons great^n-grandparents). (that removes 4 categories from Ellen)
2. Delete (listify if necessary) the award recipients categories. (that removes 4 categories from Ellen)
3. Delete the "from" categories (that a famous person lived in Fooville for a while may be of interest in Fooville, but isn't really defining). (that removes 2 categories from Ellen)
4. Delete the "LGBT+from" categories. (that removes 2 categories from Ellen)
5. Delete the "occupation+from" categories (upmerging the occupation if necessary). (that removes 5 categories from Ellen)
6. Create a "Lesbian" category. (that adds 1 category to Ellen)
7. Delete the "LGBT/Lesbian+occupation" categories (upmerging the occupation if necessary) and replace them with a link showing how to use category intersection. (that removes 4+ categories from Ellen)
8. ... DexDor (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, category intersection is the way to go. Meanwhile we need to solve the problem in front of us. Francis is trying to tighten the language and assert that woman novelists would be removed from any women novelists for whom we haven't established that women+novelist is notable (vs woman and novelist individually). It would also remove award winners if such awards aren't referenced by the majority of reliable sources when referring to the person or an ongoing part of their notability. None of this matches current practice, which I'm attempting to encode in the policy through the draft above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]