Have we gone overboard with categories? [closed]

Question

You can hardly see the biography on this profile for all the categories....have we gone overboard?

The categorization help page indicates

First, research and draft your full page whether it's a person profile, free-space profile, or other type of page. Spending time on developing this information will give you the background needed to properly categorize the page. Consider what characteristics about the profile would make someone else want to find the profile, and how they might look for it.

This profile clearly has just had category after category added without any time spent by the people who added the categories to develop the biography.    

Can the US Presidents Project get some help from the folks that manage these categories to develop simple paragraphs to explain why he received an award, military ribbon/honor, etc?   Even the place names should be explained per the Help page.

Thanks for the help from the projects that added these categories.

 

Comments

Okay, I had to look.

It's not one or two. I counted on this thread ten people who vocalized concern about the over-use of categories; I counted six people who defend the use of any category use and decry any kind of control.

Just wanting to be clear on the facts.

Basically, we're pretty split about it. But it's not just "one or two" on either side.

---

Standardization has its place... but not when it's being used as a front for dictating.

It's the one or two that feel so strongly to restrict the freedom of collaboration. You can standardize away collaboration---it's veiled as dictating.

At any rate I will follow whatever WikiTree decides.. I just hate to see another chance to have the freedom to collaborate disappear.

---

gee, all this for poor old Ike..

if it makes the haters feel better, I did not get around to adding all of his foreign awards before we at the Mil and War project got put on hold creating new categories...  so when we get back to it, there will be more categories added...

And to the point of not liking the Collars of the Order of the Queen of Sheba, it is not a necklace, or bling, it is the decoration.  While many U.S. folks may not be familiar with this type of thing because most U.S. decorations do not have different grades....  

based on either the action, or the rank/position of the person receiving the award, there can be several levels, each distinguished by what you are presented.  the names of these grades vary based on timeframe and country, , but generically, the grades are often called what is in the ()

1st grade (Knight): medal, worn on chest

2nd grade (Officer): medal with rosette, worn on chest

3rd grade (Commander): medal suspended on neck ribbon

4th grade (Grand Officer), medal suspended on neck ribbon with star device on chest

5th grade (Knight Grand Cross), medal suspended on chest sash, with star device on chest

6th grade (Collar), medal with ornate collar (remember all those period England/Grewat Britain movies where the high ranking people have collars, sashes, etc?, that is not a fashion statement, it signifies their decorations or is a badge of office)

others commented why are there pictures of the decoration/ribbon on the category page....  people may only have a picture of the person in uniform, a description of the decoration, etc, by putting the picture here, it can help a person be sure to pick the right category for the award

as to why are there categories with none, 1 or only a few people in them, they were created at the same time to try and have them appear in somewhat of a standard format and in the same place, to make it easier to search for them.  Same thing is being done with the Royal categories for Kings, Queens, Dukes, Duchesses, etc, there are many of them that are currently empty or only have a few profiles in them at the present time.

keith

---

Thank you Keith!!!

---

Robin, you closed this thread with the comment that consensus supported categories over biography.  I hardly think so.  In fact, based on the count I did back when this thread was started, there were more voices against the overuse of categories.  

All that said, I can read your frustration between the lines and I share it.

---

I'd like to echo Jillaine's sentiments and this is from a fairly enthusiastic member of the Categorization project. There are far too many categories that are only used as profile bling. In fact the project has embarked on the task of reviewing these, so the question is hotter than ever.

---

Yes, and Causes of Death is at the top of the list right now. I never read the entire thread when it originally posted, and now that I'm a Categorization leader, it's enlightening.

When categories were young and unpopulated, it seems like the theme was "let's add more!" Now that the system is 10 years old, there are repeated categories with only slightly different meaning (C:Companies and C:Businesses), specific categories with only one or two in the grouping (and probably won't be many more profiles added), and the like. There are categories on over a million profiles. Categories are in abundance and there are many errors, including simple things like invalid character use, lack of any content on the page, misspellings, too much content on the page, incorrect parent tags, and even the lack of parent tag(s). The free-use is sometimes not responsible use. Users have created small hierarchies with little or no guidance and many times they are unnecessary.

So this is part of a wider discussion that needs to occur about the future of categorization and category use.

---

The overwhelming majority of categories will never have more than a few members.  Potentiatly they could have more, but they'll never fill up, because WikiTree's coverage of the popuation will always be sparse.

The categories that earn their keep are maintenance tools - they're about the state and status of the profile, not the person.

---

I love the categories! The more the better! The categories give us so much more about the persons life, etc.

---

Andrew, they are not supposed to give us "more"; they are supposed to group people and be based on the facts in the biography.

Answer 1

Yep. That is overboard and not informative or helpful.

Comments

And his college and high school aren't among them!

Answer 2

If all of those categories are the most specific category and he belongs in them, I don't think it is overboard. Categories are one of the most useful parts of the site. You may not be interested in a list of people who received the Mexican Border Service Medal (for example), but someone else might, and we shouldn't leave Eisenhower off the list because he belongs in too many other categories and it looks cluttered.

Maybe Wikitree should consider placing categories at the bottom of the profile like Wikipedia does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

Comments

Many of the categories on that Eisenhower page are probably approrpriate for Wikipedia, but have no relevance for genealogy.

---

@Ellen,   

My point exactly, as an example the Order of Soloman has been awarded to 6 people....We need a category for that???

---

I agree that categories like "libra" and very very small categories are not necessary.

But military honors is one of the examples of appropriate categories given on the categorization page. 

---

I can understand categories for military honours when someone has been involved in a military conflict or other service, but many of the ones on Eisenhowers profile look like they are honourary.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a link to the Wikipedia page where not only all his honours are listed but most of them are linked to articles about the actual honour/order, which provides more explanation than WikiTree could ever hope to achieve?

Perhaps as Ellen has suggested WikiTree should do what it is good at - genealogy and let other Wikis provide extra details?

---

Further to my comment about Wikipedia... On occasion I've suggested to other Wikipedia contributors that some of their efforts would be more appropriate for the missing of WikiTree (for example, when a Wikipedia contributor tries to include the details of the personal lives of a notable person's distant relatives in the Wikipedia article about that person). I'll make a similar comment here about contributions that are more appropriate to the mission of Wikipedia than to the mission of WikiTree.

Wikipedia has many lists and list-like categories because of the perception that a comprehensive encyclopedia should have comprehensive coverage of topics like the recipients of the 1958 Academy Awards (the sort of thing that would be a topic for a list; the individual award winners would also be in a Academy Award Winners category, but not year-specific categories) and the notable recipients of a particular military decoration. It appears to me that some of the WikiTree military-decoration categories that Eisenhower is in were created in emulation of Wikipedia -- the only category members are notable people who are also listed in the corresponding Wikipedia category for that same decoration. It seems to me it's more efficient for WikiTree contributors to focus on documenting people and families -- including connecting notable people to those distant relatives who can't be documented in Wikipedia -- and leave the encyclopedic categorization to Wikipedia. Yes, it makes sense for WikiTree to use categories to group together the people who were decorated veterans of a particular war, but the matter of listing the details of honors like the ones held be Eisenhower should be left in Wikipedia's domain.

---

More simply put, if the category exists mostly to contain information about a particular award, it's an encyclopedia category, not a genealogy category. Wikitree categories should provide salient information about the people in the category, or clues to resources for researching those people.

---

The purpose of a category is to index and organize profiles, not add information to a profile. They exist to help people find profiles they might be interested in.

Many of those military awards were given to people who are not notable, and would not qualify for a Wikipedia article. So they wouldn't be included in the Wikipedia list. If one of my ancestors or distant relatives received one of those awards, I would want to know, and I might want to see a list of other people who received that award, and then find out the family history of some of those people to see if they have anything in common with my relative.

And Wikitree isn't that great at genealogy vs. its competitors. Categories is one of the only unique things it does.

---

Yes, the bronze star is a good example of a military award that is worth having as a category for people who were not notable, as well as some who were. The same cannot be said of Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold with Sash for Services to the Republic of Austria and the other 14 subcategories of Category: Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria, the category Order of the Queen of Sheba and its 6 subcategories, and many of the other military recognitions on the Eisenhower profile.

---

What's wrong with Category: Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria? A quick google search shows that it is still being awarded, and to people that aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Just because there aren't many profiles tagged with the category yet doesn't mean the category shouldn't exist.

Wikitree needs to focus on adding data (Eisenhower's profile only has a link to Wikipedia) instead of working on destroying potentially useful data.

If the categories are distracting, then that is a problem with the user interface of Wikitree, not the data.

Answer 3

I believe we have.  Categories for each aspect of a person's life are a little much.

Comments

For me, the very last category on the current list for Eisenhower (Category:Libra) is the most absurd. What is the possible relevance to genealogy of Signs of the Zodiac?

---

There have been discussions in the Categorization Project about the Signs of the Zodiac categories.  The consensus so far has been that they are of no genealogical value, but harmless, and there has not been a consensus so far that they should be retired.  I can think of two reasons for retiring them being (1) that in the case of Eisenhower, they add clutter to an already full profile and (2) they add no genealogical value to the profile.  

In one sense, since zodiac signs cover every birthday, everyone would have a zodiac sign.  In another sense, though, the notion that zodiac signs impact one's personality and life history is a particular belief system held by some people but not by others.  From that perspective, zodiac signs become relevent to a profile if THAT person who is profiled held a belief system that held zodiac signs important.   In other words, if Dwight Eisenhower himself thought it important to know that he was a Libra, that changes things a bit, but I would see including that in the narrative.  If a category, it would be more like Category: People who thought Signs of the Zodiac Are Important.....

---

Categories for Zodiac signs are non-informative and should be removed.

They can be derived from a person's birthday.

They add no genealogical value.

Even from an astrological perspective, it's incomplete and without context. The "Zodiac Sign" is only the sign that the sun is in when born. Other planets and points are also in zodiac signs when born, and all of it would be needed for completion. So just adding a category for a "Sun Sign" is meaningless, even if you were into Astrology.

---

Eric, I agree with you.  Zodiac signs neither contribute to genealogical research nor do they express any particular kind of recognition which might honor a person.  

This puts us at the cusp, however, of a major change in WikiTree -- so far I don't believe we have entire categories of a category that we are saying, "thou shalt not."  "And if you put it up we will take it down."  So I think there needs to be consensus within WikiTree that there are certain types of things which are forbidden to categorize, and of these types, Zodiac would be the most obvious.  

Once there is such a consensus, I think the categorization project page on "how to categorize" should be amended to include the forbidden items, naming zodiac as the first.

Answer 4

I don't see any benefit to adding categories here. No one has collaborated with me due to a category. Seems like people researching the same county, same parish, etc. could use categories to collaborate but they aren't AFAICT. I would rather see local categories replaced with small, active projects, and really broad projects that do nothing replaced with categories.

Answer 5

I do not see any Military and War Project Badge, so why are you demanding an answer from that Project? Or are you upset because he was a highly decorated War President?

Categories are not awarded they are chosen for specific reasons. I see no problem with the number of categories being used, as long as they are applicable.  All you have to do is scroll down to see the rest. It's not like that category holder is using neon flashing lights to daw attention to them.

Are you now advocating further dictatorship on this site? Where do you want to draw the line? Would you consider 4 too many? 5? Perhaps 25? Who do you recommend being the category police in deciding how many and which ones? Wikitree Admin? The Rangers? The Leaders? Obviously not the Profile Manager/s - cause he already made a decision. What other small right will be stripped from the Project Manager?

We have already been restricted to the number of Project templates that a profile can display. I urge you all to consider this question and the possible results very carefully. Once "rights" are gone, they seldom get returned.

Comments

My main concern about category collections like that one is the negative effect on people's ability to read and process information (i.e. human bandwidth). That's an enormous mass of data to wade through! WikiTree might also have concerns about website capacity (Internet bandwidth); I can't comment on that.

It's hard for me to imagine a benefit to WikiTree (a genealogy website) from having categories like Order of the Queen of Sheba and its 6 subcategories, which among them contain a grand total of two profiles. I appreciate that information like that displayed on category pages like Collars of the Order of the Queen of Sheba and Order of Leopold (Belgium) is of great interest to some people, but I don't see WikiTree as a free webhosting service for that sort of content.

---

I'm equally sure that any category someone would deem of great interest, someone else would see no interest of value in using.  The danger here is taking one persons opinion or value system to decide it reflects everybody elses. This line of thinking is elitism.

---

Terri, having a standard is not elitism. It offers a guide for us to follow in order to have some level of consistency throughout the site and to turn to when there are disagreements.

Currently, wikitree has no documented standard or criteria or even guidance for when to create a category.  I'd always hoped the categorization project would draft such a standard/guide but a review of the project page indicates their focus is mostly standardizing the format and hierarchy of existing categories.

---

As far as "WikiTree might also have concerns about website capacity (Internet bandwidth)" goes, I believe Chris has stated in other related threads that categories don't have negative impacts (please correct me if that is not correct Chris).

The current guidelines state that all members can create categories, but projects have been asked not to and have been told that they do not control the categories within the projects. The Categories Project has the task of organizing the category structure . . . which in my mind does not empower the project to control the creation of and use of categories. Kind of like the limited government provision within the US Constitution, powers not specifically given to the project are reserved to WikiTree members in toto.

So where does that leave us?

In my opinion, if a member creates and finds useful a category, even if only to that one member, it is allowed within the current guidelines. Whether or not categories are added to or remain on a profile is left to the desire of the profile manager or managers. In certain circumstances, vis a vis profiles within the scope of the Notables project, the project's guidelines should govern whether particular categories are included and possibly the number of categories.

It would maybe be helpful if, like profiles, categories had managers (and maybe trusted lists) and they were displayed on the category pages. That would provide a point of contact for each category and possibly lead to better collaboration in their use.

What we don't need are dictatorial rules imposed limiting the ability of WikiTree members to find use of the system and database. Collaborative guidelines with some flexibility is by far the better policy.

---

I mentioned bandwidth because I was looking at some categories that contain no WikiTree profiles or free-space pages, but have category pages that contain extensive text and images. I recognize that some folks are fascinated by decorations like the Order of the Queen of Sheba and the Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria, but I don't see justification for a page like Category: Grand Decoration of Honour in Silver with Sash for Services to the Republic of Austria on a genealogy website -- particularly seeing that Wikipedia manages to cover Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria and its notable recipients in just one consolidated article and 8 categories, in contrast with the 16 categories here in WikiTree. I fully understand that people want to maintain webpages to illustrate the current and historical insignia of the largely ceremonial recognitions awarded by various nations, but I don't think that this is a valid purpose for a WikiTree category.

---

John B, where do you find the guideline about limitations on categories by projects? Thanks.

---

I constructed that sentence badly. There is no guideline that states that projects are not to create categories. What has been stated is the projects "are forbidden to manage categories", with management falling under the control of the Category Project. Mea culpa, I apologize for misstating that.

As I understand it after re-reading the Category Project emails I've received, the project manages the structure and hierarchy of categories in a two step process:

1. Structure and hierarchy changes are proposed, discussed, and voted on here on G2G, and if approved
2. the Category Project leader has the final say if those changes are made.

In practice, in my opinion, there has been some over-reach where the project has "managed" some categories in effect out of existence, and arbitrarily restructured others without much collaboration with those who created or are using certain categories. This is the reason I would like to have category managers and trusted lists like there are for profiles. This would, hopefully, open more & better lines of communication leading to a healthier structure of the category tree and reduced tension about all things category related.

Answer 6

I don't use categories at all, I know I should, but I find the task of looking through the list of categories daunting and just avoid them like the plague. For my families of origin I have well-flushed out, I don't use them, unless they have been added by others. But the two branches of my family that have dead ends I do, in hopes that that might lead to new collaboration.

Comments

Susan, you're not alone.

---

I agree. I joined wiki tree for the purpose of documenting my family and finding links to others with similar interests.  I come from a line of hard working people, mostly farmers,  who settled new territories, defended our country,, and raised their families the best they could.  The biography and sources are what matter to me. Cherry

---

Indeed, the "anything goes" attitude toward categories has led to a  proliferation of categories whose intended purpose and relationship to other categories are very difficult to discern -- a situation that probably is bewildering to many of us -- and could make categorization a daunting task. Case in point is a set of three categories I found at the top level under Category: Professions: Milk Delivery Men, Milkmen, and Milk Vendors (the last of which has subcategories). I suspect that all four people in these categories were in the same line of work.

Answer 7

Categories are a constantly evolving phenomenon.  I try to keep promoting the question, "how does this category promote genealogy?"  We often use categories for recognition rather than research, which I see as a secondary goal.  In the case of Dwight Eisenhower, the question would be, "how much additional recognition does the man need?  

My military service resulted in 6 ribbons.  1 was given to everyone who wore a uniform in that period and two were given to everyone who served in Vietnam.  1 was given to an entire unit.  These are nice to literally decorate a uniform, but I can't see cluttering up my profile with them.  I also received a bronze star for meritorious service in a war zone.  Now, THAT felt like it deserved a category on my profile!  I can't see Eisenhower benefiting from a category for every single ribbon on his uniform.  That's just silly.

But there are a lot of differing opinions about categories.  One comment is negative about categories involving a very few people.  I would counter that I find what I call "micro-categories" VERY useful for genealogical research.  In Maryland, property carried names, and tended to stay with families.  So I category for the profiles associated with a particular piece of property can be very helpful in sorting which person named John belonged in which family.  That doesn't mean that every piece of property has to be associated with every person in Maryland!

Answer 8

I don't think so.  If one takes the time to study the history of the individual, and the dedication, accomplishments, and patriotic service, the wars, what happened in the battles, etc. etc. I think these categories are much deserved!  I think that George has done an excellent job on this profile.  Hats off to him for finding all those categories!!!

What the problem is for me is finding all the damn categories that are available to note on a specific profile, especially the category html.  It would take me forever to find all of those that are President Eisenhower's page. I think that a person with the right experience in writing programs could make Wikitree much easier to use.  Most of us, like myself, have very little experience and we just cut an paste.  Several of my friends don't use WikiTree because it has become too technically hard to use. I agree with them, but I deal with it and try to do the best I can.  I like WikiTree and think it has a lot of value.

And, let me, as a medic during the Vietnam War, state that to me the categories, especially in the Military and War categories, are there for a purpose.  If one takes the time to click on one they might understand why we have the freedoms that we have today in our country.  Which, by the way are going away because folks don't know how we got them!

I vote for having as many categories as possible but a better way to find them all.  President Dwight 'I like Ike' Eisenhower deserves every bit of those categories!  As many others do as well!

Just my thoughts folks!

Comments

I just want to follow up on this question of having too many categories.  How can we have too many of anything?

I just thought I would visit George's very well done profile on President Eisenhower and select just one of the categories listed.  I chose the "Order of the Cloud and Banner".  I went to the category page on wikitree and read it, then googled it and visited Wikipedia.

Here are Dwight's awards: https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/awards_medals.html

There are 15 known members of the Order of the Cloud and Banner,  including Dwight Eisenhower:

• Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, regent of the Kingdom.
• John R. Allen
• Claire Lee Chennault
• Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope
• Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Peter Fleming (writer)
• Robert Halperin
• James M. Masters, Sr.
• Chesty Puller
• John Dale Ryan
• Gen. Alfredo M. Santos (Philippines)
• Austin Shofner
• John C. Young
• Isaac D. White
• Mohan Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana

This military award was first established in 1935.  The order is divided into nine grades.  It is awarded for 'contributions to national security or quelling internal unrest.  The next higher award is the Order of Loyalty and Valour and next lower award, the Order of Loyalty and Diligence.  Dwight received his award in 1947. Dwight's award was the 1st grade of 9, with the Special Grand Cordon.

I list all of this because I think it is important not to just build a profile and show place of birth and mom and dad etc., but to show who this person is and what they did.  Has anyone ever looked at Wikipedia's page on President Eisenhower?  If you do, make a pot of tea and put a log on the fire...because you are in for a real treat!

---

So you say that a grand total of 15 people have ever received the Order of the Cloud and Banner, which is an award bestowed by the government of the Republic of China, apparently only to non-Chinese. (The sort of thing that governments hand out during a state visit of a foreign dignitary.) Yet WikiTree has 10 categories for this "Order"!!! Those aren't categories for use on a genealogy website -- they are an online museum for the worshipful display and description of the various insignia associated with this "Order."

---

I give up!  This is the only thing that I have encountered in the field of genealogy that turns me off and it is the bitterness and selfishness of some who seem to think that they have a handle on the situation.  I really could care less what you do with the categories on this site as I am quickly becoming tired of this type of attitude and could spend my time elsewhere.  For me, genealogy is the study of all of our ancestors, not just who they are, but where they came from, what they accomplished and what kind of people they were.  It seems that some would just love to argue a point when the point doesn't even matter!  I hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving Day as it is part of our heritage only because of what some of our ancestors did...but I guess it really doesn't matter, does it?

---

After reviewing your profile page, I see that you are one of the leaders of this website.  Because of this I am dropping my membership in WikiTree!  Even though I have enjoyed being part of the many projects and building profiles, I see no reason to spend my time with people like you!  My hope is that you change your attitude towards other members feelings.  Thank the good lord that we are not all like you!

---

I don't understand how "categories" are "much deserved". The awards themselves are much deserved, yes. And any awards should be described on a person's profile. However, the category should not be confused with the award itself.

The problem is that the Categorization project does not have clear guidelines as to what should, and what should not, be a category. So, of course, there will be arguments on both sides.

---

Anonymous Anonymous, are you saying that I am one of the leaders of this website?? Where did you find that?

---

Anonymous Anonymous I Thank You for your Military service !

Answer 9

Let me add a thought which doesn't yet seem to be part of this discussion.  

The purpose of a category is to group profiles.  In its most conservative form, that means that if a profile has on it "Category: Keeney Wagon Train", it should be assumed that you want to click on the category and see what profiles are on that category page, because the people in this category had some connection with each other which is important to know;  having the category name on the profile itself is simply the means for getting you there.

If you will never want to go to the category page and see what profiles are there, then one could argue that there is no purpose for having the category.  That is the argument to prohibit the zodiac:  if profiles were all properly filled out, each sign of the zodiac would have 1/12 of all the profiles on WikiTree and there would be zero benefit from going to the category page to see which several million names are Aries.

A lot of the discussion really is about Honors rather than Categories. With an Honor, the important thing is what's on the profile itself; you might never want to go to a grouping of profiles with the names of others receiving the same honor.  

There is no reason whatsoever that the profile narrative cannot contain a section titled ==Honors==, with all the honors listed.  It could be at the beginning, the middle or the end of the narrative.  

Many of the categories on the Dwight Eisenhower profile are properly Honors rather than categories.  A Category should direct you away from the profile to the group sharing a common feature;  an Honor should focus your attention on the profile itself and the person profiled.  

 

Comments

The example of the Wagon Train. This is exactly how I use categories as well. When I need to quickly get to one specific profile I use the categories. Also handy for quick copy / paste of specific templates, such as presidential one's.

---

This is one of the best answers so far. Thank you for distinguishing categories from honors and suggesting a place in the narrative instead. I think a number of us have been trying to recommend the same thing but you've done so very concisely.

Answer 10

In it's simplest form, genealogy is the study of familial connections. It has nothing to do with the history of any individual, no matter what their accomplishments were/are.

Yet the majority of genealogists include those accomplishments, particularly the ones the historian finds personally interesting. Here on WikiTree the accomplishments are noted either in the biography section, as categories, or in both.

For the purpose of this conversation, we are asked if certain categories are "necessary", with the oft repeated statement that the unwanted categories are "not genealogy". Yet other categories are completely acceptable, even though by definition they are "not genealogy" either.

Dwight Eisenhower was a President of the United States, and is included in that and related categories. Being President is "not genealogy". It was a great accomplishment, but it had nothing to do with who he was related to, which "is genealogy". Being a recipient of The Order of the Queen of Sheba award is "not genealogy", and seemingly unpopular, so the category appears to be on the chopping block. So why isn't the Presidential category on the block as well?

Popularity. Not "genealogy".

I find this a slippery slope. WikiTree is supposed to be collaborative, not subject to the whims of popularity contests. The guidelines and rules should be applied equally, for categories this should mean that either we allow them et al, or we don't et al. WikiTree guidelines currently allow members to create categories as needed or desired, and the category project has the (unenviable) task of managing the structure and hierarchy of the category tree. Without a reason better than certain members disliking them I would hate to see arbitrary changes to these guidelines.

Have we gone overboard with categories?

Who gets to decide? WikiTree members as a whole, or certain more vocal members?

Based on what criteria? Usefulness? Popularity? Appearance? Who votes or gets to be heard on each of these?

Most importantly to me, is this a debate we even need to have? Why? "If it ain't broke . . ."

Comments

Well, John, having taken on a role within the categorization project, I feel an obligation to participate int he conversation.  Also, my own work on WikiTree constitutes an ongoing experiment to see which categories I personally find useful and which I don't.  

But I agree with you completely on the matter of excluding a kind of category.  The most obvious is zodiac, which by your criterion has the least "popularity" and the greatest universal recognition that it's useless.  But while we have taken steps to make categories in some topics more uniform, I don't believe we have "banned" a type of category -- yet.  So it is indeed a slippery slope.   If we start by banning the most obvious category to ban -- zodiac -- where will that lead us?  And do we want to go there?  

A profile's manager does retain some responsibility.  If you categorize a profile that I manage with a zodiac category, I will endeavor to remove it, hopefully, of course, after a polite and collaborative conversation!

---

Yes, astrology is rather useless, whether in genealogical terms or any other. Yet I like identifying as an Aquarius. Probably a carry-over from listening to the song growing up. I put the category on my own profile, but I wouldn't put it or any other zodiac on any other profiles. I wouldn't agree with removing the categories from WikiTree either . . . let those who do like them use them, and let the profile managers have the final say as per current guidelines. Pretty simple solution concerning a whimsical category collection.

Is the Order of the Queen of Sheba award category collection that whimsical? {shrug} Not to everyone I'll bet.

The important question IMHO is, for any category, do they do any harm? And not simply to some other member's ascetic taste, but real harm to the database. If not, then I ask again whether we even need to be having this debate? Can't we all just get along?

---

The Style Guide says, and this I think is especially important for the older or more 'famous' profiles/families, many people have to share or are very interested in : 

Since we collaborate on shared profiles we need to agree on how profiles should look. Otherwise personal preferences might conflict and lead to bitter disagreements. For example, the poet e.e. cummings might prefer that every word of his profile be written in lowercase letters. On his own profile, nobody needs to argue with him. However, profiles of his ancestors that are shared with other descendants need to use standard capitalization. See the Style FAQ for more information.

So this goes for adding categories or templates as well, we of course have thousands of members with probably just as many different views or opinions and I can understand and respect all of them, but ... if just deciding or discussing this for one president is this hard already... I guess it's perhaps time and important we have or think of  some sort of guideline or Style rule for the use of categories ?  

And yes I agree and think it's more and very important we all try to get along and have fun in what we all are working on :) 

---

Don't we already have that Bea? Don't the current guidelines and style rules leave the final decision about what is added and/or stays to the profile manager(s)? Why do we or would we require something additional for categories, or at least certain categories?

Because some profile manager(s) would allow zodiac categories on the profiles they manage while others would not? (just using zodiacs as an example, substitute in any other(s) as they come to mind) Do we then take away the "right" of those who have no objection in favor of those who do? Or vice versa, depending on popularity?

Ever walk or drive on black ice?

---

Just like you say John, it of course is fine to let the current profile managers have the final say as per current guidelines, but if the current guidelines are not really clear or confusing, which seems to be the case and is probably the reason for this question, perhaps it's time to make sure things are more clear ? 

If the guidelines for the categories are not clear for everyone it's of course not really helping to prevent ''bitter disagreements'' so to make sure we all can get along we probably can think of something to make things more clear... 

Answer 11

It appears to me that the underlying concern that led to this discussion thread is that WikiTree has not been effective in making people aware of and helping them understand the policy/guidance on the purposes and appropriate uses of categories, much less in ensuring that the guidance is applied consistently. Just as we aim for a single unified "Tree" that everyone collaborates on, to support that tree, WikiTree needs a single unified collection of categories that everyone can collaborate on. A laissez-faire approach that says "create and use any categories you want, as long as you don't put them on my relatives' profiles" isn't a good recipe for ensuring effective collaboration.

For those who may not have read it recently, the Category FAQ states:

What is the purpose of categories?

By grouping profiles of people that share something in common, categories can:

• help members organize ongoing research,
• help members with common interests find each other,
• help members with a special interest find profiles they may want to investigate or collaborate on, and
• help historians or genealogists researching a particular topic or location.

For example, if you were interested in a specific military unit, perhaps because a family member served in it, you want to see if there are other profiles of people on WikiTree who served in the unit. You may want to get in touch with the members who created those profiles and work together on further research. You might even want to start a project with them on the unit.

One point that may not be sufficiently emphasized in that passage and other parts of the guidance is that categories exist for grouping related profiles and pages, not for documenting a person's biography or a topic of genealogical/historical interest. It appears that some newer users may be mistakenly treating categories as a substitute for adding informational content to a profile page -- instead of stating in the profile that Uncle Arthur was a Boy Scout leader, they might look for a Boy Scout Leaders category to place him in, and not include the information in the profile text. Those users would benefit from clear guidance on profile-writing and the uses of categories. Also, there have been discussions in the past to the effect that the content on a category page should be limited (if there's a lot to say about a topic, one or more free-space pages should be created instead); those discussion deserve to be repeated.

Additionally, I think we need a shared understanding of what types of groupings are an appropriate basis for categories in WikiTree. Not everything that's interesting and is somehow related to genealogy makes a reasonable category. I might find it fascinating to collect the profiles of people who share my first name of "Ellen," but I submit that this is not a category that would broadly benefit WikiTree and its users. I also might be interested in documenting the teapot designs/styles that were represented in great aunt Millie's antique teapot collection by creating a category for each kind of teapot, but I submit that teapots are not an appropriate subject for WikiTree categories. I hope that we can agree on those two examples of subjects that shouldn't be a basis for categories, but it appears that we may need some discussion regarding signs of the zodiac and a number of other topics raised in this discussion.

Comments

But . . .but . . . occupations are "not genealogy".  ;-)

Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_H-LY4Jb2M

---

I forgot to add that your answer above is also one of the best so far in that you underscore the need to make sure we are training people accurately about the purpose of categories.

---

The possibility of a Category: Gandy Dancers illustrates another critical feature of categorization:  Categories are placed on profiles by volunteer WikiTree members pursuing their own interests with their own time.  If four of us encounter the profile of a Gandy Dancer, one may think, "Oh, this is fascinating, this deserves an occupational category, I wonder who else on WikiTree is a Gandy Dancer", but it is a sure thing that at least one other of the four will not even think of putting a category on the profile, and maybe another will think of it but think such categories shouldn't even exist.  The result is that whatever category you have, it's a sure thing that some but not all people who should be in it are in it.  If the value of Category: Gandy Dancers depends on having ALL the Gandy Dancers in WikiTree in it, that value will never be realized.  So the benefit of having a Category: Gandy Dancers lies pretty much solely in the benefit it provides to those who are fascinated by Gandy Dancers and willing to spend energy on them.  

The primary motivation people have for spending time on WikiTree is their own research and inclinations.  To the extent we develop systems that capture that energy and reward people for employing it, we've got something good going.  To the extent the systems we develop act as a drain on peoples' energy, we're wasting valuable time!

---

The Gandy Dancers category is completely empty and has no content on the category page. It used to be in the top-level Professions category, but I edited it so it is a subcategory of Railroad Workers, but is no longer also at top level.

---

Actually, I had no clue what a gandy dancer was.  I was thinking of a female performer with feathers.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandy_dancer...

---

And I mentioned it because I knew what this occupation was, it's a funny-sounding term that a person might find on a census record and be curious about, and I was aware of this category as an existing but unhelpful category.

---

"The primary motivation people have for spending time on WikiTree is their own research and inclinations.  To the extent we develop systems that capture that energy and reward people for employing it, we've got something good going.  To the extent the systems we develop act as a drain on peoples' energy, we're wasting valuable time!""

Excellent points Jack. I support the creation and use of categories by the WikiTree members at large within a structure managed by the Categorization project. Not everyone is going to find use in every or any one particular category, but they are not created with everyone in mind to begin with. The guidelines in place now work in the manner they were intended. No shared online tree the scope of WikiTree is going to be exactly to everyone's liking . . . that is what collaboration is for. We work to achieve the best fit, not the perfect fit.

We cannot do that by restricting the abilities of all members to only use the database in the manner that the most vocal of us feel it should be. We use guidelines, not commandments. We set structure, but allow that structure to be malleable and grow.

I haven't seen any category that I dislike to the extent that I would call for it to be banned (though I can think of some and hope never to see). I've seen many odd ones that I'll never use though. I see an entire class of categories in the process of being phased out of existence despite strong objections. I do not see too much power in the hands of the members, but I do see the overuse of powers by some groups.

Lets not reign in the creativity of the members, but rather the stifling influence of the groups. 

---

Ellen, the empty Gandy Dancers category brings up a related but separate topic -- the creation of topics FOR OTHER PEOPLE to use.  That's not quite the same thing as commanding Ellen to categorize profiles as to the kind of pet the person has, but creating Category: Pets and then subcategorizing it by Category: Cats, Dogs, Mynahs, Gerbils, etc -- and then leaving all the categories empty because you're expecting somebody else to use them -- is a waste of one's own time and that of others.

There are certain defined groups where advance creation makes sense -- there's a lot of interest in categorizing by state, so at the outset, sure, create all 50 state categories.  And even all the County categories.  But I would certainly discourage the use of time, as has happened with Professions, where an immense number of profession categories -- like Category: Gandy Dancers -- were created, most of them unpopulated.

---

John:

But . . .but . . . occupations are "not genealogy".  ;-)

Given the right place and the right time certain occupations are absolutely pertinent to and helpful for genealogy. For my main area of interest, 17th and 18th century Bohemia, certain professions ran in families, two from my own relations come to mind without having to go back to my records: millers and cantors. Looking for records for people in these professions helped trace the movements of family members throughout the region which would otherwise have been nearly impossible to do.

---

You don't have to sell me on that Helmut, I'm in complete agreement with you.   :-)

I was just attempting to show a bit of levity during this debate, I found it kind of funny that some of my points were being made by others who have been on the opposing side.

Answer 12

Is a part of the problem that the categories appear at the top? Would it be as much of an issue if categories were at the bottom  or linked throughout the text?

Comments

For me it's not the location, it's using categories as a substitution for biographical documentation. That's not what categories are about. That and proliferation of divisions of sub-categories, such that they are too specific. These two things are related.

And honestly, it's really hard to write up guidelines or rules about this, because decomposition like this is pretty much an art form. Not that it shouldn't be attempted, or done. But as I'm writing this, I see similarities in breaking down work to be done in Project Management, in business. How far should one decompose? Not enough and it's too hard to manage and is still vague. Too much and it seems absurd. Both ends of the spectrum don't provide enough value. How should one find the right level?

My two cents for the moment.

---

Speaking of the misuse of categories as a substitute for biographical documentation, I just ran across a profile that has no biography, has a list of 7 sources, and is included in 6 categories: Gemini | This Day In History May 29 | This Day In History May 01 | Moultonborough, New Hampshire | Randolph, Vermont | Parkinson's Disease.

---

yowzer

Answer 13

Hi guys,

We started a thread about the placement of categories on a profile if you want to weigh in and vote.

It's here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/323559/should-categories-positioned-somewhere-different-profile

Thanks!

Answer 14

You should be able to assign a profile to an unlimited number of categories. But you shouldn't have to SEE them unless you want to. The solution would be to just show a categories link which, if clicked, would expand (or open up a window) to let you see all the categories that the profile has been assigned to.

Comments

Show the first three, then a "more..." link?

Answer 15

This discussion is of timely interest to me. As a fellow who has been a "casual" member of WikiTree for some time and now trying to sink my teeth into it in a purposeful way, I thought I'd share my POV. I think it is understood that WikiTree in general, and Categorization in particular, can be dauntingly confusing to the new person. To me, the principal point of Categorization is to ORGANIZE. The point of the Eisenhower discussion is the use of Categorization to RECOGNIZE. I think an underlying reason for the proliferation of Categorization is the need for FINDING. The search functions of WikiTree seem limited.

In G2G, there is an open search box, but not very robust. For example, I do a search for "Medal of Honor" (without the quotes) I get some references specifically to "Medal of Honor" and many to "Roll of Honor". If I do the search WITH the quotes, I would expect the string to be found, but there is no difference.

Among the profiles, one can search for a first and last name, then some sorting and filtering but not much for non-name factors. While there are means to search specific surnames or variations of surnames, I discovered that I get a lot of irrelevant variations but miss some of the most important variations. I raised that issue HERE.

One thing that's confusing to me about Categorization is that I tend to think of a vertical structure of categories. Here, there is a lot of horizontal linking of categories. That is undoubtedly a more organic way of functioning and I would consider that a good thing. However, it can be difficult to navigate (again, from a newbie perspective) especially when we have not yet arrived at a consensus of what is "too much".

Having read the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the Categorization system is "too much" and should be reined in somehow. But I say that with respect and humility that I'm too new to make it a proclamation. In my own organizational work, I think I will make restrained use of categories and more use of "space" pages.

But then I may change my mind after I learn more. ;)

Comments

A hint for Douglas and other people who want to do advanced searches on WikiTree:

Enter your search on a standard Google search page and include site=wikitree.com as a search parameter.

---

I have tried that. I just started looking at creating a custom search engine for WikiTree. I actually named one for WikiTree but haven't figured out the details. I believe this would be something that could be made part of the WikiTree website. But then, I'm no expert.

---

WikiTree has two Google custom search engines already (at least there are two that I know of). One's at the bottom of the search page; it searches for any text. The other is a category search engine at https://www.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=003048598688029858478:aemrovxydzo (and linked from the upper right corner of category pages). It's when those two don't give me desired results that I go to Google to create my own search.

---

Well, how about that. Seemed like too good a thing to be an original thought of mine. Just take folks to point the way. Thanks, Ellen.

Answer 16

In a word YES. The example used is an extreme case but it does point out the ridiculous lengths that anything can be taken to. Some would say it does no harm and is merely a "fun" diversion I agree in part.

I would suggest members be permitted to make all the Categories they want but only display the first three or four. For example...

Categories: US Presidents | Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army | Distinguished Service Medal   more.....

...where a member could click on more if they were really interested in whether or not "Ike" received  an Order of the Cloud and Banner with a Special Cordon. 

This limit would, IMO, improve the appearance of the profile page while allowing those will lots of spare time to do their thing.

Answer 17

I saw several comments about the help pages and the Categorization Project pages lacking guidance on when to add categories.

That isn't true.  The Categorization Project has been working on revision of the help pages related to categories and one of the areas addressed is when to use categories and when to use stickers instead (as in recognizing honors and the like).  Some of these revisions are relatively new.

And probably more importantly for what you see on profiles is the fact that there is little automatic implementation of category guidance and when there is, it tends to raise a certain amount of vocal complaints from members who either haven't read the guidance, have a misunderstanding of the grouping purpose of categories, or are just personally invested in the categories they tend to use.

On Project Protected profiles like the U.S. Presidents, it will likely take a team effort from the project involved to get all those honor type categories written into a good biography and converted to stickers.  And they may not be willing to do away with the categories as these categories may serve very useful purposes for projects in grouping of profiles they want to make sure to create profiles for and keeping track of their own profile improvement goals.

Because so many different members and projects use categories in ways that others may not always see the value of, I'm a proponent of moving them to the bottom of the profile page where they won't be in the way of viewing the biographies but will still be available to serving the purpose of grouping profiles regardless of how many groups a famous or notable person might fit in.

Comments

Mary,

I am retired military and to list all my Awards, Medals and Decorations (AMD). 

Then list my participation in Wars and Campaigns, it makes the top of the profile look cluttered to say the least.  Among other categories I may be able to list.

I moved all Military Awards, Medals and Decorations to the bio section using a heading for all three and sub headings for each one under that. Using in WT links to go to the category pages for that AMD page.

I then checked those specific AMD categories I moved and they did not show on the appropriate category page for that AMD. 

So I deleted them from the bio section and replaced them at the top of the page under categories.

I understand it is hard wired into WT for the categories to show this way.

I and I think others would prefer that all categories be in the bio with links to the category pages.  Plus have them with the ability to populate the categories page for that specific category.

This would result in a much more diverse and richer biography and benefit the whole WT community.

Just my 2 cents as a new member.

---

Or just mandate categories at the top of the page have to be hidden. Then have to be worked into the profile.

---

Steven, if you want the category linked anywhere in the bio text you can do that, without it showing at the top. Check out this paragraph on the help page for categories; https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Categorization#Links_to_categories

---

Thank You, it will take some work but it will make my profile look better, also others I work on.

I think I saw in one of the many above replies to this original post that said this was not possible.

Any who, maybe we need to make sure they are done in this fashion as policy.

---

The way described in the help I linked to will only be that - a link.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but it will not add the profile among those listed under the category, so if you want "your profile" to be listed among the others with the same award/medal/recognition you will have to use the category at the top.

---

You can write [[:Category:Blah]] anywhere in a page.  This will make a link to the category page, but it won't make the current page a member of the category.

But if you write [[Category:Blah]] without the : at the start, the effect is

- when you Save, the current page becomes a member of the category

- when you view, the text [[Category:Blah]] is skipped where it appears, and the category is listed at the top.

There isn't any other way to make a page a member of a category.

---

I can do this to get it in the bio, but it still shows in the header area.  Is there a way to hide the Categories in the Header of the page??

*[[Category:Air Force Good Conduct Medal]]

[[:Category:Air Force Good Conduct Medal |Air Force Good Conduct Medal]]

---

@Mary

The issue really is that most of the categories were added by people outside the US Presidents project.   This means the project has to spend the time to figure out what the category is for, find a source for the category and then write up a paragraph in his biography.   All I am really trying to point out is the addition of categories with no substantiation is creating work for others.

---

The Categories header at the top of the bio is built by the system from the membership table, not from the bio directly, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Answer 18

Yes.  I have long believed we have gone overboard with catagories.  When I first started with Wikitree I asked the question " Are catagories mandatory?" I was told " No they are not."  I personally have not found catagories to be of any help to me except for the U.S. Presidents.

Answer 19

Having carefully re-read the question, I went ahead and added an explanation and source for his being one of 1038 Compagnons de la Libération. I would consider being a Compagnon de la Libération a fairly significant honor, but that is probably my French bias.

If categories have to be removed, I would suggest removing those that are awarded to foreign heads of state during state visits, if there are any on his profile, because they don't really a highlight a particular achievement.

I see that he has the Médaille Militaire, which I'm not sure should stay there, but I'll look for a source for it.

Comments

I've added sources for the Médaille Militaire, and while Eisenhower is one of only a handful of non-French recipients, it's good to know that this decoration was awarded to 500,000 people in the course of World War II alone. (even my great-uncle had it, though that is for his participation in the Great War).

Answer 20

I remember reading this, must have been about a year ago - went through the whole thread and I see it today and I click over and it still looks just crazy - why was nothing done?  It is bloated as heck and never shed anything except virgo - sure he was real accomplished  and all, quite the guy but lets just get reasonable here and cut out about two thirds of that and if it is so important put it in the bio - jeeze

I see now that really several categories are useless and I get that they are for helping find folks that go together because they are in the same group and that is the reason to have them - otherwise they need to be done away with

Comments

What confuses me is with so many categories why is the bio so short? Or am I missing something?

---

This was actually the whole point of the thread - not so much that there were too many categories than that there was absolutely no indication why the categories were relevant to the person. I believe the biography was actually completely empty when the thread was started.

We could certainly avoid a lot of category overload if each addition of a category on a profile was accompanied with an explanation and a source.

---

I agree that there needs to be something in the bio wit a source to justify adding a category. slight exception  would be birth/marriage/death location since those aren’t always in the bio.

---

In Eisenhower's case, I think we can assume that most of his gongs were mere formalities.  The same criteria wouldn't be applied as for Joe Doe.

Somebody writing a book-length bio might make a list, but somebody writing a page or an article wouldn't give it space.

WikiTree's problem (and Wikipedia's) is to have a sense of proportion and distinguish the significant from the trivial.

---

Oh yes!  What accomplishment did he do to receive this honor? what for that one? Like to see chronological accounts of a life here that made the categories make sense -