This category is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
@Mitchumch: An WP:EPONYMOUS category has no right to exist just because the article does - there needs to be enough articles to justify it. Although it's not technically an example of WP:OCEPON the princples are the same. People are prone to WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION and not to look around to see what other categories exist - what articles would go in this category but not Category:History of civil rights in the United States for instance? I have some sympathy with what you're trying to do, but I wouldn't do it the way you're doing it, I would have worked on the articles first and then, if there's enough articles to justify the category, create the category. I know Wikipedians are encouraged to be WP:BOLD but in this kind of high-profile and super-sensitive area then it's best to talk first and edit second rather than vice versa. Often in these areas the way Wikipedia has organised itself may not seem logical but is actually the result of 15+ years of painful consensus building, taking account of angles a newcomer may not have considered. There's always a possibility that it's just an aspect that's been overlooked, but if you start a discussion on somewhere like WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement or WP:WikiProject Politics then it will soon become clear which one applies! So I suggest you first have that discussion, then work on the articles, and then create categories as appropriate. The rules on categories are rather tighter than on articles and the presumption is more to delete and then recreate them as and when they're needed, rather than keep them around just in case they're needed, frustrating though that may be (I've been on the other side of that process dozens if not hundreds of times!) Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
