[[Category:Wikipedia wp:oc wp:ocats|Overcategorization]]

Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter".

To address these concerns, this page lists types of categories that should generally be avoided. Based on existing guidelines and previous precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, such categories, if created, are likely to be deleted.

Example: Bald People, Fictional characters who love to shop, Famous redheads

Categorize by what is actually important in a person's life, such as their career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have are trivial—it may be interesting to put in the article, but is not useful categorization. If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic. This applies equally to articles about other items than people, such as Cities with a McDonalds restaurant or Novels by publisher.

Example: Cat lovers, Iraq liberation opposition

As above, holding an opinion is not a defining characteristic, and should not be a criterion for categorization, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinion. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, which can be a defining characteristic (see Category:Activists).

Examples: Obese people, Cult actors, Mysterious musicians, Outstanding Canadians, Effeminate fictional characters

Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Examples include such subjective words as: famous, notable, great, etc; any reference to size: large, small, tall, short, etc; or distance: near, far, etc; or character trait: beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young, etc.

Examples: School districts at the top 7% on Pennsylvania standardized tests, Locations with incomes over $30,000

There is no particular reason for choosing "7%" or "$30,000" as cutoff points in these two cases. Likewise, a district with 3,800 students is not meaningfully different from one with 4,100 students. A better way of representing this kind of information is to to put it in an article such as "List of school districts in (state) by size". Note that Wikipedia allows a table to be made sortable by any column.

An exception to this is categorizing by year, since making a category for each year is not arbitrary.

Example: Celebrity Gamers, Red haired kings

Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits. For example, celebrities are usually famous for other reasons than being gamers.

Examples: Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Male models from Dallas

Avoid subcategorizing items by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the items' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state). However, geographical boundaries are useful for dividing items into regions that are directly related to the items' characteristics (for example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks).

However, intersection by location may be appropriate for splitting a large category: for example Category:American writers by state.

Example: Secular Jewish philosophers, LGBT murderers, German-American sportspeople

Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must be at least possible to create one.

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

Example: Pre-1933 two-digit Virginia state highways, Fictional Black African-American DC animated Superheroes with the power to manipulate electricity

If an article is in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that a "category A and B" has to be created for this article. Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list. Even worse, an article in categories A, B and C might be put in four categories "A and B", "B and C", "A and C" as well as "A, B and C", which clearly isn't helpful.

In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories (e.g. if both "Fictional African-American superheroes" and "Fictional superheroes with the power to manipulate electricity" are overpopulated, intersections would become plausible).

Examples:Ice-named rappers, Churches named for St. Dunstan, Fictional Misters

Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself. For example, a category for unrelated people who happen to be named "Jones" is not useful. However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related. For example, a category grouping subarticles related to a specific Jones family would bring together multiple related articles.

Example: The Beatles' wives, Catalan-speaking countries

Avoid categories that will never have more than a handful members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.

Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. While these categories themselves are not troublesome, completing the schemes will likely result in a ridiculous number of categories being added to articles.

Example: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues

Avoid categorizing events by the locations of the specific events, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events or concerts, convention centers that have hosted specific conventions or meetings, or cities featured in specific television shows that film at multiple locations. For example, some very notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted many sports events and conventions over time; categories for all of these events would not be readable. However, this should not exclude the use of categories that indicate how the facilities are regularly used for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues).

Example: Potential 2008 Republican U.S. Presidential Candidates

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A candidate for public office, the possible next CEO of a certain corporation, a potential member of a sports team, an actor on the "short list" to play a role, or an award nominee (just to name a few examples) should not be grouped by category. Lists may be appropriate for such categories.

Example: Miss Virginia Teen USA

In general, the winners of all but the most notable awards should be put in a list rather than a category. It may be useful to note the awards in the recipients' article. If an award doesn't have an article, it certainly doesn't need a category (and not every award that has an article needs a category).

Example: Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums

Magazines and books regularly publish lists of the "top 10" (or some other number) in any particular field. Such lists tend to be subjective and somewhat arbitrary, and as such don't make for meaningful categorization. Additionally, since there are many of such lists, creating categories for all of them would add needless clutter to all relevant pages. Some particularly well-known and unique lists such as the Billboard charts may constitute exceptions, although creating categories for them may risk violating the publisher's copyright or trademark.

Examples: John Wayne, Barbra Streisand, ZZ Top, Eponymous fashion model categories, Sports broadcasting families.

In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families and musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question.

However, Wikipedia's coverage of a topic may be split into multiple directly linked subarticles and/or lists. These function best when categorized together under the main article's name (which, in the case of a person, would make the category an epononymous one). For example, Jan Smuts has a number of subarticles, such as the Early life of Jan Smuts and Jan Smuts in the Boer War, which are categorized under Category:Jan Smuts. Category:Ronald Reagan is another such example.

Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. "Performers" can include actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc.

Examples: Actresses who have appeared veiled, Anal porn actress, Musicians who play left-handed. Saxophonists who are capable of circular breathing

Avoid categorising performers by some action they may have performed (such as a "pirouette", a "runway walk", a "spit take", a "pratfall", a "sword fight", "anal sex", etc.); some method of performance (such as while standing on their head, left-handed, etc.); or how they may have chosen to appear (such as bald, veiled, etc.)

• Performers who have portrayed <character name>
• Performers who have portrayed <a type of character>
• Performers who have performed <a specific work>

Examples: Fictional characters by actor and subcategories, American dramatic actors, Actors that portrayed heroes or villains, Jim Steinman artists, Actors & Actresses who portrayed, Actors who have played serial killers, Actors who have played gay characters, Actors who played HIV-positive characters, Actors who have played the President of the United States, Films by actor (2006 April 3), Films by actor (2006 November 13), and Actors by series

Avoid categories which categorise performers by their portrayal of a role. This includes portraying a specific character (such as Darth Vader, or Hamlet). This also includes voicing animated characters, such as Donald Duck or doing "impressions"; portraying a "type" of character (such as wealthy, poor, religious, homeless, gay, female, politician, Scottish, dead, etc.); or performing a specific work (such as Amazing Grace, "Waltz of the swans" from Swan Lake, "To be or not to be" from Hamlet (the play), "Why did the chicken cross the road?" (a joke), etc.). Finally, this also includes categorization by performance in any specific film, radio, television, or theatrical production (such as M*A*S*H, Star Wars, or Phantom of the Opera).

Examples: Artists who played Coachella, Saturday Night Live musical guests, Ozzfest performers, Celebrity Poker Showdown players, and Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War

Avoid categorising performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue.

• Wikipedia:Categorization
• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
• Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ
• Wikipedia:Categorization of people
• Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)
• Options for sortable list articles
• Wikipedia:Category intersection - One of several open feature requests which seek to be an alternative way to address overcategorization.