Вікіпедія:Надлишкова категоризація

Категоризація - корисний інструмент групування статей для зручності навігації і зв'язування подібної інформації. Однак не кожен перевірюваний факт (або сукупність двох чи кількох фактів) у статті вимагає відповідної категорії. Довгі статті могли би таким чином породити сотні категорій, більшість з яких не були б достатньо значимими. Також при цьому ускладнюється і пошук потрібних категорії для певної статті. Подібна Надлишкова категоризація відома також як "хаос категорій". В цьому ракурсі, ця сторінка містить деякі типи категорій, яких загалом слід уникати. Вона основана на існуючих правилах і порадах, а також прецедентах із обговорень англійської Вікіпедії, Такого роду категорії, якщо вони створені, скоріше за все будуть вилучені.

Невизначені або тривіальні характеристики

Приклади в англійській вікіпедії: Повні люди, Відомі рудоволосі, Смерті за віком

Загалом, категоризувати слід за тим, що може розглядатись як значиме у житті особи, як наприклад його/її кар'єра, походження чи основні досягнення. Напроти, чиїсь кулінарні смаки, улюблене місце відпочинку чи кількість зроблених татуювань можуть розглядатись як тривіальні. Такі речі можуть бути цікавою інформацією для статті, але не корисною для категоризації. Якщо щось може бути легко випущено з біографія, воно певно не є визначальною характеристикою.

Зважайте, що це включає також стосується групування людей за звичайними обставинами їх смерті, як наприклад категоризація осіб за віком, в якому вони померли, або за тим, чи мали вони невидані і неопубліковані роботи на момент смерті. Навіть якщо такі категорії можуть бути цікавими для деяких людей, вони не є принаймні енциклопедичними.

Думка про питання або проблему

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Любителі котів, Опозиція за вільний Ірак, фанати серіалів «Зоряний шлях»

Уникайте категоризації людей за їх особистими думками, навіть якщо вона висвітлюється у надійних джерелах. Сюди включаються противники або критики питання, особисті уподобання (таких, як симпатія або неприязнь до зеленої квасолі), і думок або заяв про особу інших людей (напр. "підозрювані злочинці"). Зверніть увагу, однак, на різницю між дотриманням думки і статусом активіста, остання може бути визначальною характеристикою.

Subjective inclusion criterion

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Ожирілі люди, Культові актори, Таємничі музиканти, Видатні канадці

Прикметники, які відсилають до суб'єктивного критерію включення не повинні мати місце у назві категорії. Наприклад, це такі суб'єктивні характеристики: відомий, значний, видатний, і т.д.; також визначники розміру: великий, маленький, високий, короткий, і т.д.; визначники відстані: близький, далекий, іт.д.; or character trait: прекрасний, злий, дружелюбний, жадібний, чесний, розумний, старий, популярний, потворний, молодий, і т.д.

Arbitrary inclusion criterion

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: School districts at the top 7% on Pennsylvania standardized tests, Locations with incomes over $30,000, Category:100th episodes

There is no particular reason for choosing "7%", "$30,000", or the 100th episode as cutoff points in these 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 put it in an article such as "List of school districts in (region) 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.

Trivial intersection

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: 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 notable for reasons other than being gamers.

Перетин категорій за георозташуванням

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Male models from Dallas

Географічні кордони may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics (for example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks).

In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. Наприклад, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state).

However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. For example, Category:American writers by state.

Незначущі перетини за етнічністю, релігією чи сексуальною орієнтацією

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Jewish mathematicians, LGBT murderers, Sportspeople by religion

en:Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states, in part:
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 may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable 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, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their race or sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

Narrow intersection

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Pre-1933 two-digit Virginia state highways

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 such 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.

Small with no potential for growth

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Catalan-speaking countries

Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few 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.

Mostly overlapping categories

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders

If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances.

Unrelated subjects with shared names

Приклади англійської вікіпедії:Ice-named rappers, Churches named for St. Dunstan

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 directly related to a specific Jones family.

Eponymous categories for people

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: 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 or 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. If these links are not present, then the links should be added before proposing such a category for deletion. Sometimes, renaming the category to reflect the topic, rather than the person, is a good alternative to deletion. Category:Shakespearean scholarship and Category:Tolkien studies, are two such examples. Note that articles on works etc by the person can be placed in categories like Category:Novels by Agatha Christie.

However, there are sometimes good reasons to have an eponymous category. Most examples are either collections of subarticles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), or collections of articles on a topic about the named person. Category:William Shakespeare and Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, (sub-categories of which were noted as examples above), are two such examples. Another example is Category:Alexander the Great, which includes subarticles as well as topic articles such as Alexander (film), Alexander Mosaic, Alexander Romance, Alexander in the Qur'an, Alexander the Great (1956 film), and Alexander the Great (song).

Кандидати та номінанти

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: Potential 2012 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 groupings.

Award recipients

Example:

People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category.

Exceptions include Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners. See also Category:Award winners.

Published list

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. 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.

Venues by event

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: WrestleMania venues, Republican National Convention venues, Democratic National Convention venues

There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, 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.

Likewise, avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations. Many notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted so many sports events and conventions over time that categories listing all such events would not be readable.

However, categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way for some or all of the year (such as Category:National Basketball Association venues) may sometimes be appropriate.

See also #Performers by performance venue.

Актори by performance

Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc.

Актори by action or appearance

Приклади англійської вікіпедії: 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 by role or composition

• 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, and Actors who have played the President of the United States.

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.).

Similarly, avoid categorizing artists based on producers, film directors or other artists they have worked with (such as "George Martin musicians" or "Steven Spielberg actors"). Performers are defined by their body of work, not by the people they have associated with professionally. For example, Tom Hanks is distinguished by his performances as an actor, not by the fact that he has appeared in Steven Spielberg's films.

Performers by performance venue

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

Avoid categorising performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. This also includes categorization by performance in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production (such as The Jack Benny Program, M*A*S*H, Star Wars, or Phantom of the Opera).

Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers).

Див. також #Venues by event.

Люди, пов'язані з

Examples: People associated with John McCain, People associated with Pope Pius XI, People associated with Madonna, People associated with the hippie movement

The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY.

However, it may be appropriate to have categories whose title clearly conveys a specific and defined relationship to another person, such as Category:Obama family or Category:Obama Administration personnel.

Див. також

• Вікіпедія:Категорізація
• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
• Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ
• Wikipedia:Categorization of people
• Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)
• Sortable tables

• Wikipedia:Category intersection – one of several open feature requests which seek to be an alternative way to address overcategorization.
• Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation, an essay