Potential Reforms for SmallCat edit
Wikipedia:Overcategorization is an editing guideline with a number of different subsections. All of them occasionally have issues with disagreements between long-term participants but it's usually pretty nuanced. WP:SMALLCAT is different because even long term contributors disagree entirely on what it should do.
1. What is small?:
- For a long time, there was a working consensus at CFD that small was either 5 or 10 articles but, in practice, categories with 5 articles did not get deleted. This unwritten consensus was not appreciated by editors new to CFD though. See here and here where the unspoken case law frustrated editors. And ArbComm also expressed concern.
- Having a numerical threshold of 5 articles, even if we qualify it, will likely not change any !votes but it will let editors new to categorization clearly understand the intent. Avoiding creating categories that don’t aid navigation in the first place is a better goal than creating them and having them deleted at CFD. This could entirely replace the growth potential section.
2. What happens when more articles are written?
- CFD contributors could look at a small category and think it lacks growth potential. But, in a couple years, they’re proven wrong and there are 5+ solid articles. Editors should be able to recreate categories without DRV or CFD once the threshold is met.
- SMALLCAT is different than the other editing guidelines under WP:OC that are about the nature of categories that is unlikely to change while this is about articles which get added all the time.
3. Where do patterns end?
- The editing guideline indicates that “a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme” but how far does that extend? Let me give two easy examples:
- Category:1940s establishments in Puerto Rico, there are 2 small subcats because WWII limited new things on the homefront, but having all the years in the timespan still makes sense because it completes a clear set of 10 subcategories. The small categories aid navigation here.
- Category:College wrestling coaches in the United States on the other end is an entire tree with mostly underpopulated categories and, while there is some limit to the number of colleges, readers wouldn’t expect every one to be populated. The small categories do not
- Both of the above examples can be pushed to ridiculousness though. Category:1660s establishments in Puerto Rico contains one subcategory (1661), which contains one article. Now, maybe some library in Spain will find documents to give other precise dates but, short of that, it isn’t growing. The generally well populated 1940 categories do not justify this a useless 1660s one.
- Similarly, Category:College football coaches in the United States is generally well populated but that sub-categorization scheme does not extend to college wrestling coaches by college.
- Figuring out how to create a short editing guideline to say where the tail ends and a branch of a tree is no longer part of the sub-categorization scheme seems tough to me.
I welcome input from other editors! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible revisions to text edit
Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growthToo small to aid navigation
Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members have fewer than five members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme which is generally well populated, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.
Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page and they conform to the other guidelines applicable to categories.