Talk:Thelma Walker

Categorisations

Mattythewhite raised the question of WP:CATDEF and reverted my recent removal of some categories. To quote WP:CATDEF, "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio."

When people write of Thelma Walker, do they write of her as "Marple Hall School alumni, Thelma Walker" or "Thelma Walker, Labour MP and alumna of Marple Hall School". No, they don't. It is true she went to this school, but it's not a defining characteristic about her. It is not one that reliable sources refer to. Ergo, it should go. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You were reverted by Edwardx, not me... Mattythewhite (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattythewhite. Bondegezou, I think you may be misunderstanding the policy here. It would be quite unusual if reliable sources were to refer to any politician in the manner that you suggest. In the UK at least, the only exception seems to be "Old Etonian". Generally the only descriptor would be "public/grammar/comprehensive school educated", except perhaps for local press where the readers might be familiar with a school such as Marple Hall. The policy refers to commonly and consistently in the sense of the possibility of there being some alternative to terms such Italian, artist, and Baroque. In this case, as long as we have a reliable source, no one is likely to reasonably argue that she went to a different school.

Of course, what school she attended is relatively trivial compared to her being British and a politician. Nevertheless, we do add such categories to every article where we have a reliable source for the secondary school that someone attended. Your edit summary seems to suggest an approach which runs contrary to well-established practice here! Edwardx (talk)

My apologies, Mattythewhite.

Edwardx, if, as you say, "It would be quite unusual if reliable sources were to refer to any politician in the manner that you suggest", then it is clearly not a defining category as per WP:DEFCAT.

I see no support at WP:DEFCAT for your interpretation. "commonly" and "consistently" are straightforward words with straightforward meanings.

That this is a common mistake doesn't make it any less of a mistake. People are commonly defined by their nationality, their profession, their affiliation to a style or an ethos, but not by where they went to school. Bondegezou (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, if one were to follow your logic, there would be no need for any "People educated at" categories, except perhaps [[Category:People educated at Eton College]]. If that is your view, or should you wish to open out this discussion, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools is very active, and would be a good next step before contemplating Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not my logic, I suggest. It's what WP:CATDEF says.

Where someone was educated may be a defining category for certain people, so I'm not looking to delete any educated-at categories. I'm saying that where Thelma Walker went to school is not a defining category for Thelma Walker, and likewise for a number of other UK politicians. But, yes, relevant WikiProjects are useful: thanks for the suggestion. I had been thinking of some other relevant WikiProjects.

For now, I suggest the question is simple: Is Thelma Walker commonly defined in terms of being educated at Marple Hall School? If not, the category should go from her article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. And as it does not appear that anyone else is going to comment here, if you are seeking to overturn longstanding custom and practice, then you should raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Edwardx (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"[L]ongstanding custom and practice" can be another name for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which we try to avoid. WP:DEFCAT is as an editing guideline, and we should try to follow it.

I will seek WP:3O. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Response to third opinion request:

Education categories are commonly used in BLPs, and generally ought to stay provided the information is sourced in the article. I see no problem with including these categories here – education is an important event in the life of the subject, and therefore a defining characteristic. – bradv🍁 14:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the category. With this being a pretty stubby article, about 5.5 of 64 words or 8.6% of the article is about the subject going to this school. By weight, it's perfectly justified for this to be one of the 10+ categories. If the article grows and this becomes less relevant in the context of the overall biography, with many more-relevant categories being added, that may change. To show you an article where it's more of an issue, look at Winston Churchill which has "category clutter": with nearly 100 categories, Wikipedia:Overcategorization could come into play. But that isn't a problem here. (The name of the category looks a little weird to me. Does the school also train guide dogs or helper monkeys, requiring the distinction of "people"?) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both for input. Neither of your comments, it seems to me, has engaged with what the editing guideline at WP:DEFCAT actually says. Nothing there supports the reasoning either of you have offered. What is there defines what a defining category is. Namely, it is "one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, Bradv, and Edwardx: Sorry for not addressing that. This is a bit tricky, I've gone through some more guidelines and will try to provide a more complete response. Just above the CATDEF guideline, the previous points verifiable and neutral point of view are each described as a "must"; the language for the CATDEF paragraph describes it as a practice rather than a requirement. Defining characteristics are a central concept used, but it does not state that these should be the only categories or that this is the only practice for applying categories. My thinking is that categories for defining characteristics are the ones that absolutely should be present, and the best ones to start with, but others may be okay to flesh-out the article's categorization (so long as they're verifiable and neutral, and don't overdo it to the point of category clutter).

Wikipedia:Categorization of people § By association states that Currently, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by educational institution. I would have personally liked to see a category reflecting her teaching background added, but the guidelines don't seem to support that unless she is notable as a teacher or her non-notable teaching career affected her notable political career. It does seem a little inconsistent that you can categorize for a non-notable student but not for a non-notable teacher, but that's the guideline and the practice.

Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics states if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Here, with a stub article, everything is in the lead, and that was my initial reaction that the article could be categorized for everything it mentions. (You never know, if you cast a wide net like that it might attract more editors who could expand the article.)

I hope this is of some help. Third (and fourth) opinions are non-binding. If you want more-expert advice on categories, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is probably the best forum to pursue this further. (I'm willing to discuss more, but uncertain I'd have anything more to add.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NONDEF states, "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided." In other words, only defining categories should be used, as I understand it.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is not appropriate here. I'm not suggesting the category should be deleted or merged. I'm saying the category is not defining for this individual. If this article had a lead, it would not be in the lead. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Educational categorization is specifically supported, per WP:COP above, which seems pretty clear. If you still have issues with this, Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Non-defining characteristics (NONDEF) states In disputed cases, the categories for discussion process may be used to determine whether a particular characteristic is defining or not. CfD isn't just about deletion/merging/moving, but any category issues, as the editors who watch that are familiar with all the guidelines and practices and so are well equipped to advise on such disputes. You're free to take this to dispute resolution or an RfC, but I feel CfD would be the better forum. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I will seek other avenues to discuss the matter further, as you suggest.

I think your reading of WP:COP is mistaken. Educational categorisation is supported. This means that where someone was educated may be an appropriate categorisation in some cases. It doesn't mean that we should default to including an educational category. WP:COPDEF agrees with WP:DEFCAT, we should only use defining characteristics. Is where Thelma Walker went to school a defining category for Thelma Walker? Clearly not. Her defining characteristics are clearly that she's a British Labour MP. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)