Category talk:Wives

whether category includes behaviors specific to wives

In history, sometimes wives were sold or murdered specifically because they were wives, the sale or murder in some cases being by the husband and the sale often involving the purchase of the woman by a new husband so that because of the sale she became his wife, that being the intent of the latter part of the single transaction. Articles that are relevant are Wife selling, Wife selling (English custom), Uxoricide, and Wife-carrying.

An editor categorized wife selling into Wives. Another editor decategorized it. I began a talk topic at wife selling asking why the decategorization, pointing out that categories are intended to assist readers in finding related articles and behaviors specific to wives (by wives or by others addressing wives) are about wives, including that the sale of wives is about wives.

The decategorizing editor replied that "[b]ehaviours related to wives are not wives". That suggests that the category should be limited to nameable wives or identifiable groups of wives, the present subcategories, but I don't see an exclusion stated on the category page. Arguably, a subcategory for behaviors affecting wives should be created, but, with only four articles so far (maybe there are more), maybe that would be making too many subcategories. I think behavioral articles should be in the Wives category or in a behavioral subcategory, but not omitted altogether from one or the other.

What are other opinions?

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC) (Corrected wording: 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC))

I stand by my previous statement on this point: this category is about wives, not behaviours or practices related to wives. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think most categories are divided into a practice/behavior category and a nonpractice/nonbehavior category or that one is normally a subcategory of the other, but practice/behavior articles should be just as findable by readers through categories.

Editor @Kanghuitari:, since you created this category and also added articles on behaviors regarding wives (such as Wife selling) into it, I hope you can let us know your intentions, preferences, or thoughts on this question. Thank you very much.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Practice/behavior articles should be categorized, but need not be in the same category or category tree as articles on "nonpractice" topics, such as biographical articles. If you disagree, suggest opening an RFC on the matter to get wider input. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll request a third opinion. The category creator and populator has not responded to my invitation but has edited elsewhere, so presumably doesn't want to participate, so this qualifies as a disagreement between only two editors.

The category Category:Women includes women and behaviors/practices regarding women both directly and through subcategories, so both approaches are accepted there. Likewise for North American people, African-American women, physicians, and military personnel. That's not binding here, but this category has fewer entries, so if the volume of articles listed doesn't overload readers for women, North American people, African-American women, physicians, or military personnel, I don't think it will for wives. Those for historians, carpenters, musicians, singers, Muslims, and Christians have behaviors/practices only as subcategories. The category for spouses has a behavior/practice directly and not as a subcategory. While the categories for children and childhood are separate, they each have many more entries.

I think when a category's direct population is low, as with wives, that subcategorizing just burdens the reader into another level of digging.

I'm also not clear what we would call the subcategory without being cumbersome, like practices regarding wives, since 3–4 articles all regarding wives are too few to need 2–3 subcategories.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the arguments and examples provided by Nick Levinson are convincing. Categorization groups related topics. As a reader, I would expect Category:Wives to include articles related to wives-the-concept, not just list articles of people who happen to be wives. The parallel examples, such as Category:Women and the rest, seem appropriate for Category:Wives to match. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

3O Response: My first inclination was that this should be okay, as "Wives" is rather general and only useful as a container for other categories. However, on further examination of the category heirarchy, it seems that most similar articles are grouped under Category:Marriage and its subcategories such as Category:Marriage law. I would suggest that one of the Marriage categories would be more relevant than this one. It might also be worthwhile to place a hatnote on this category: {{for|articles related to marriage|:Category:Marriage}} or somesuch.
I would also note that articles should only be categorized per their most notable characteristics. Most articles on married women are not primarily notable for the subject being someone's wife. We don't categorize articles for every little thing that applies, or it becomes difficult to spot the more relevant categories listed (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization). Wife selling has almost 50 categories, many of which are incidental to the subject and should probably be removed.
This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it is useful! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I categorized three articles into marriage law or, for sport, marriage and I've added a clarifying hatnote to this category. I'm leaving decisions regarding Wife selling (English custom) to other editors. I think the relevance is adequate, so there's no clutter for someone reading a category page, which is the main purpose of a category. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)