183:
they did in the course of their occupation). And occupation is universal - all bios have an occupational category (or, if they're unemployed, can go under "Celebrities" which covers famous individuals with no notable occupation). Other traits are either not universally categorized (e.g. most articles don't have an ethnicity or religion or political category) or are not something the person is known for (e.g. most people aren't known for their gender or date of birth). Therefore, I recommend that if you consider dividing a region into subcategories, stick to just subregions and occupational groupings. They are the ones that are most universal, natural and that represent defining traits.
109:
likely to want to view bios about people in similar professions rather than just a big alphabetical list by name. (Another likely scenario would be that I'd want to view people within specific cities or counties, but I'll stick to occupations here.) I might want to read about artists from the state, or about businesspeople or military people, etc., depending on what my specific interest is. So rather than present the reader with a massive phonebook like directory of names of
Californians, it's useful to group those names into broad occupational subcategories. Thus instead of placing someone in
179:
using only the most appropriate occupational category within a given state, meaning that you should probably use the occupation of the person while they were living in that state. Also, I've seen three or maybe four articles with four or five state categories where
California, for example, was only mentioned once and only in a trivial way (i.e. they lived in California for a couple of years doing something non-notable). In those cases you can probably safely remove that state category altogether since the person isn't apparently at all notable for being from that state in the first place.
34:
182:
If you do subdivide a large regional category, I'd suggest sticking to mainly subregions and occupations for the biographies. The reason is that subregions are an obvious subdivision of regions, and a person's occupation is almost always their most notable trait (people are usually known for things
108:
However, for really, really large geographical categories of biographies it can be useful to create a subdivision scheme by occupation. Think of it from a reader's perpective using the category system. If I'm a reader interested in perusing articles on notable
Californians, for example, I'm fairly
178:
Most biographies will only fall under a single state category, sometimes two, but a rare handful will have three or more state categories. (It's quite uncommon, but really large biographies of people who moved around a lot sometimes have a lot of state categories.) In those instances I'd suggest
187:
Anyway, I thought that with all the back and forth in the last few days on this guideline on the wording for
Intersection by location, I thought I'd provide a specific example of an exception to the rule and how I've been handling it to help reduce potential conflicts and maintain a scheme for a
104:
cases you don't need to divide topics by geographical boundary. That's especially true for topics whose categories aren't particularly large and for geographic boundaries that are particularly small. For example, I don't think most cities or even most states need a complete by-occupation
120:
For such a scheme to be useful, it needs to completely cover all the biographies, meaning that theoretically all bios should fit within one of the subcategories. In order to achieve this, the categories need to be broad, top level occupational groupings similar to those in
188:
particular state that is hopefully more useful to the reader than just a huge list of names. I think you really have to look closely at any given state or city case by case before pursuing a complete subdivision. And likewise you'd have to carefully consider whether
129:
is a way to make sure that the scheme is consistent with similar occupational schemes. The goal is to keep each of the occupational categories as broad as possible while still covering all the bios. (The current set seems to do a pretty good job on that front.)
152:". These broad subcategories should usually not be further subdivided unless there's already a well established scheme (e.g. Actors and Musicians are already subdivided by state, so those subcategories exist under the parent of
105:
subdivision because the number of articles involved isn't really large enough to make it all that useful. And for some occupations the fact that the person is in one city versus another city doesn't make a big difference.
159:
Do not replace national categories with state ones or city ones within an article because not all states and cities have occupational groupings. For example, a
California writer should be under both
415:
369:
93:
by occupation. Since the work I'm doing on that category is somewhat related to the recent discussion of intersection by location, I thought I'd share some comments on the goals of a scheme like
221:
395:
252:
191:
Well, back to the cleanup I've been doing. But hopefully this is some food for thought on things to consider regarding specific occupations-by-state and occupations-by-city schemes.
400:
385:
505:
214:
133:
So in regards to avoiding category clutter and overly specific categories, I think the keys here when considering occupational subdivision schemes for a region are:
287:
262:
436:
140:
If a complete subdivision appears to be useful, keep the occupational groupings as broad as possible. I'd recommend modelling them after categories listed under
338:
333:
364:
441:
207:
137:
Is the region large enough to warrant it? If there aren't a ton of biographies in the regional parent, it's probably not worth pursuing subdividing them.
272:
456:
359:
49:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
469:
390:
50:
451:
195:
479:
277:
431:
328:
145:
110:
90:
70:
323:
318:
257:
94:
86:
74:
17:
141:
126:
122:
500:
282:
153:
313:
267:
247:
242:
410:
446:
164:
160:
114:
54:
149:
343:
42:
474:
66:
77:. At the suggestion of some editors I'm archiving the post here as an essay for reference.
303:
144:, and using a category description such as "This category holds people who fall under
494:
308:
57:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
192:
199:
89:
which was set up a while back as a way to index the exceptionally large
85:
I've been in the process of reviewing and completing the scheme for
203:
69:
as a personal short essay explaining handling the subdividing
65:
The following was originally posted to the discussion page of
28:
406:
Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation
167:. Keep in mind that the goal here isn't to subdivide the
424:
378:
352:
296:
235:
416:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories
370:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
81:Regarding interesection of state and occupation
396:Categorising fictional characters by attribute
215:
8:
506:Knowledge (XXG) essays about categorization
253:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
125:. In fact, using top level groupings from
222:
208:
200:
437:DexDor/Categorization of award recipients
95:Category:California people by occupation
87:Category:California people by occupation
75:Category:California people by occupation
51:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
470:Category:Knowledge (XXG) categorization
401:Do not write articles using categories
386:Categories are different from articles
7:
73:into occupational groupings within
288:Overcategorization/User categories
263:Categorizing articles about people
100:OCAT is obviously correct that in
55:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Overcategorization
457:Kbdank71/Wikiproject notification
339:Template index/Category namespace
334:Category classification templates
171:, but is simply to subdivide the
148:and whose occupation falls under
365:Categories for discussion/Speedy
154:Category:California entertainers
32:
26:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
442:Alan Liefting/On categorisation
146:Category:People from California
111:Category:People from California
91:Category:People from California
71:Category:People from California
230:Knowledge (XXG) categorization
1:
452:gracefool/What is a category?
432:DexDor/Terminology categories
142:Category:People by occupation
127:Category:People by occupation
123:Category:People by occupation
273:Categorization/Sorting names
97:and how it relates to OCAT.
196:16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
165:Category:California writers
115:Category:California writers
522:
465:
360:Categories for discussion
161:Category:American writers
391:Categories versus lists
163:(or a subcategory) and
113:, they would appear in
501:Knowledge (XXG) essays
480:WikiProject Categories
309:Basic help for editors
304:Basic help for readers
278:Categorizing redirects
150:Category:Entertainers
53:, as it has not been
447:Coder Dan/Categories
329:Categorizing portals
324:Container categories
379:Projectspace essays
258:Overcategorization
488:
487:
475:Category:Contents
173:geographical area
63:
62:
513:
425:Userspace essays
224:
217:
210:
201:
36:
35:
29:
521:
520:
516:
515:
514:
512:
511:
510:
491:
490:
489:
484:
461:
420:
374:
348:
319:FAQ for editors
314:FAQ for readers
292:
283:User categories
231:
228:
83:
59:
58:
33:
27:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
519:
517:
509:
508:
503:
493:
492:
486:
485:
483:
482:
477:
472:
466:
463:
462:
460:
459:
454:
449:
444:
439:
434:
428:
426:
422:
421:
419:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
382:
380:
376:
375:
373:
372:
367:
362:
356:
354:
350:
349:
347:
346:
341:
336:
331:
326:
321:
316:
311:
306:
300:
298:
294:
293:
291:
290:
285:
280:
275:
270:
268:People by year
265:
260:
255:
250:
248:Category names
245:
243:Categorization
239:
237:
233:
232:
229:
227:
226:
219:
212:
204:
185:
184:
180:
176:
157:
138:
82:
79:
61:
60:
48:
47:
39:
37:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
518:
507:
504:
502:
499:
498:
496:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
467:
464:
458:
455:
453:
450:
448:
445:
443:
440:
438:
435:
433:
430:
429:
427:
423:
417:
414:
412:
411:Wiki workflow
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
383:
381:
377:
371:
368:
366:
363:
361:
358:
357:
355:
351:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
320:
317:
315:
312:
310:
307:
305:
302:
301:
299:
295:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
264:
261:
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
240:
238:
234:
225:
220:
218:
213:
211:
206:
205:
202:
198:
197:
194:
189:
181:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
131:
128:
124:
118:
116:
112:
106:
103:
98:
96:
92:
88:
80:
78:
76:
72:
68:
56:
52:
46:
44:
38:
31:
30:
19:
405:
190:
186:
172:
168:
132:
119:
107:
101:
99:
84:
64:
40:
353:Discussions
41:This is an
495:Categories
297:Help pages
236:Guidelines
169:occupation
344:PetScan
193:Dugwiki
67:WP:OCAT
43:essay
16:<
102:most
497::
156:.)
117:.
223:e
216:t
209:v
175:.
45:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.