This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Overcategorization page.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Please note that any and all examples for addition to these guidelines MUST be sourced to specific Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussions. (Though that in itself does not guarantee addition to the guidelines.)

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Categories This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories 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.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories

Do any of the watchers of this talk page want to help us understand the meaning of 'defining' and 'non-defining' with respect to applying categories to an article describing a collection of multiple different events? If you do, please join the discussion at Talk:2025 British anti-immigration protests#Bad categories?. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the direction of Category:Fictional superhumans by ability categories, such as the recent deletion of Category:Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves, we may need a new section about classification of fictional elements based on in-universe characteristics. It would pertain to WP:OR and ill-defined labels, but I have no idea what exact wording would be used. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted a few cases where elements are diffused into too many interchangeable categories, such as the CfD on Category:Fictional half-demons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who initiated the deletion discussions about those categories, I agree with this proposal. In general there should not be categories created for fictional characters based on their attributes unless a significant quantity of reliable sources have defined a significant pool of characters as that specific attribute. There needs to be some kind of guideline drafted to discourage creating such categories. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the related CfD discussions: @Jc37, @Johnpacklambert, @Marcocapelle, @Bsherr, @Οἶδα, @(Oinkers42), @Kalel456, and @Fayenatic london. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is about Category:Fictional story elements (not Fictional materials). – Fayenatic London 22:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the results of these discussions, for instance Category:Fictional characters who can copy superpowers has enough characters with that as their defining ability to warrant a category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it wan't clearly defined enough: Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds had this issue where it included characters of mundane types that are faster than humans, such as cars. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then the solution is just to prune them as nondefining, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are we heading toward a mass DRV? If so, which pages should we include, besides the following?

Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds

Category:Fictional characters who can copy superpowers

Category:Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves

Category:Fictional characters who can fly

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about doing a mass DRV, I would have to think about it. Although, just looking at it, perhaps Category:Fictional extraterrestrial–human hybrids and Category:Fictional half-demons should be reconsidered. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The underlying problem with this categorization is that categories are supposed to be about clearly defining traits. Many characters especially from comic books have had traits change over time. Categories are not supposed to be about everything that is known about a person. The extreme was when people created Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent and placed Lucy Van Pelt in it. No where in any peanut comics ever did they ever mention Lucy having Ductch ancestors ever. The closely related problem is that to categorize by something it needs to be consistently and universally defining. Wikipedia has a horrible track record of people categorizing based on trivia. What is defining about characters is the genre they are in, not specific traits. I will accept that being a "Super hero" is defining. I do not think the specific abilities that the super hero has are defining. Especially since some of these are pretty arbitrary. Superman is a fictional superhero. I do not think any of his specific abilities are defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said! silviaASH (inquire within) 23:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we will have to keep evaluating these categories on a case-by-case basis. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my plan. Once the CfD on Category:Fictional characters who use magic and its children is closed I'm going to nominate more of these as I feel to be appropriate. The exact text of whatever new guideline is proposed to deter those and similar categories from being recreated will likely depend on what the consensus of those discussions is. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is likely true. Οἶδα (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a list of candidates for new precedent for OCMISC that cover more nuance than the current examples, but I don't know if consensus is established here. Except that we should have at least one example about categorizing things based on what they are not, and one for categorizing things based on information that is unknown.

• Films set in fictional populated places
• Disputed/unknown cause
• Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire
• Heterodox economists
• Upcoming video games not yet scheduled

It is possible that better examples can be discovered in Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:OCMISC or search results. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose nobody would object adding more examples to the guideline. Another thought, User:GoodOlfactory (no longer active) had pages with exhaustive lists of CfD discussions sorted by rationale, including the outcome of every discussion. If that sort of pages could be revived, the guidelines could simply link to those pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also like to add misuse of terminology categories for holding miscellaneous topics as well, such as Aviation terminology, but it would require a specifically designated explanation and I don't have a complete grasp on what separates the keep cases from the delete cases. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]