Talk:Max Mallowan

RFC about categorisation

Should this biographical article be added to non biographical categories Category:Agatha Christie, Category:Nimrud and Category:Nineveh? --woodensuperman 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have attempted to revert these recently added categories but my edits have been reverted. The way I read WP:COPSEP and WP:OCASSOC is that we should have separate categories for biographical articles and non-biographical articles, where biographical articles are cateqorised by WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person. I don't think these defining characteristics would include people or places they are associated with unless there is consensus for a separate "people" category, i.e. something in a Category:Archeologists by location tree or similar, or the clearly inappropriate Category:Husbands of Agatha Christie. --woodensuperman 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• WP:COPSEP is not relevant here at all. I quote: "Keep people categories separate. Categories with a title indicating that the contents are people, should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article" This is for people categories such as Category:Writers from London or Category:Writers from New York City, not eponymous categories.
• Wikipedians have been disputing what are the "WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person" for over twenty years, and I don't expect the matter to ever be resolved.
• We certainly categorize people by places associated with them, and it is logical for archaeological locations to be defining for their researchers.
• "the clearly inappropriate Category:Husbands of Agatha Christie" Why would it be inappropriate? We have an entire category tree for Category:Husbands by person. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. The spirit of WP:COPSEP is to keep biographical and non-biographical separate. Keep people categories separate. We should not have a mix of biographical and non-biographical articles in the same categories. Yes, we categorise people by where they are from, but in a "people from..." tree, not just after the name of the place. Again, we are keeping the categories separate. Look at some of the examples at WP:OCASSOC. And spouse categories seem to be almost exclusively for royalty and similar. --woodensuperman 14:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"biographical and non-biographical separate" Categorization does not work that way, and the text says nothing about the topic. Eponymous categories are not people categories. Wikipedia never had a problem with overcategorization, only with undercategorization. And WP:OCASSOC specifically allows categories by association, specifically listing Category:Obama administration personnel as a good example to follow. Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the spirit of WP:COPSEP is to work that way, and that is generally the way it works in practice. I have absolutely no idea why you have added Category:Agatha Christie to Reginald Campbell Thompson. This is textbook WP:OCASSOC. The association is clear in Category:Obama administration personnel, but these "associated with..." categories need to be WP:DEFINING. This is generally not the case for spouses, etc., as people are usually independently notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --woodensuperman 14:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"usually independently notable" People like like Archie Christie are only notable because of who they married or (in his case), a controversial divorce and a connection to his first wife's temporary disappearance. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"WP:COPSEP is not relevant here at all." I disagree. Wikipedia:COPSEP clearly states,

This guideline concerns the categorization of biographical articles about people. This includes: *All articles named after a person or a group of persons. *All categories where such biographical articles could be expected to be located.

This article is literally named after a person and the dispute pertains to categories where such biographical article could be expected. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Where biographical articles are cateqorised by WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person. I point out Categorizing pages,

While it should typically be clear from the name of an existing category which pages it should contain, the text of the category page may sometimes provide additional information on potential category contents.

But at the same time, Overcategorization By being associated with,

"Associations" can be problematic, §subjective and vague. As it can be determining what degree or nature of "association" with a particular subject is necessary to qualify for inclusion in such a category. The threshold of this may fail arbitrary inclusion criteria.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Associations are the gold-standard in Wikipedia for categorizing people. We have a category tree of Category:People by association. Dimadick (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Gold standard"? Nonsense. There are quite a few in that tree that are a bit of a mess to be honest. --woodensuperman 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for Category:Nimrud and Category:Nineveh as the article clearly indicates that these are excavations they worked on. No for Category:Agatha Christie as a marriage to her doesn't cut it to be included in the category is my understanding (please ping me if my understanding is incorrect and I need some education). TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)