Wikipedia talk:Categorization

See also: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories

Orphans

Why are people allowed to create orphan categories? See Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories There are thousands of them.Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Help me understand something about categories....

I have come across a Category issue that I don't understand so am hopeful all you Cat. mavens out there can educate me on this. For instance, recently Category:American country singer-songwriters was removed from the Hank Williams biographical article but was added to the Category:Hank Williams. It seems to me that the man himself should be in the singer-songwriter Category rather than having this Category be a sub-cat to the subject's biographical Category but maybe not... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally we don't include articles in both a parent category and a subcategory of the parent. There are exceptions, but they don't apply here. So since Category:Hank Williams is a subcategory of Category:American country singer-songwriters, articles should only be in one of those two categories, not both. And it wouldn't make sense to omit Hank Williams from his eponymous category, so... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok...I think I understand that...-ish.

So. Category: American singer-songwriters is the parent Cat to Category:Hank Williams. The actual Hank Williams biographical article should be put in either the parent Cat(American singer-songwriter) or into the sub-Cat (Hank Williams) but should not be listed in both. Is there a best Categories practice for situations like these? You'll need to spell it out for me, Categories are (obviously) not my strong suit. At first glance this almost could seem like vandalism to a casual observer, especially for those editors not knowledgable in the ins&outs of Category-trees etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This is all incorrect because you’re talking about the article that defines the eponymous category. The article should be in the same categories as the corresponding category. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok...So, Postdlf, if I interpret what you're saying correctly (and maybe I don't), it's that Hank Williams should be in Category:Hank Williams and also in Category: American country singer-songwriters. Could someone point me to the guidelines that apply in these cases, whatever they are? Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the Hanks Williams category should not be in "Category:American country singer-songwriters" because not all members of the Hanks Williams category are American country singer-songwriters. User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has corrected that. Many categories are similarly miscategorised. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears this discussion and the previous one above are related. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is no rule which says that all members of a subcategory have to be members of the superior category. But we dont permit orphan categories, as Category:Hank Williams now is. Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SUBCAT says "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Belong" is a rather vague term. Not everything in Category:Charles Dickens is a Victorian novelist. In fact I think only one article is about a novelist. Category:Novelists is a subcategory of Category:Novels but clearly novelists are not novels. Rathfelder (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Novelists should not be a subcategory of Category:Novels. Anyone can make category edits; doesn't mean the edit is correct. Agree fully with Michael Bednarek above.Oculi (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OP was asking how the article should be categorized, and Michael basically said that the article should only be in the eponymous category, which is incorrect. The article should be categorized by everything of which it is appropriately a member, and the parent/sub issue does not apply through the eponymous category, otherwise that would be the article’s only category. postdlf (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Poets is a subcategory of Category:Poetry. Culture is a subcategory of Category:Humans. Category:People with Crohn's disease are a subcategory of Inflammations. Deaf people are a sub-category of deafness. How far do you want to take this? What do you propose to do about it? Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Poetry is a topic category and contains topics related to poetry, such as poems and poets. Category:Poems is a set (sub)category and should contain poems (and not poets). Category:Poets is a people set category and should contain poets. Category:People with Crohn's disease is certainly not a valid subcat of Inflammations, as people are not inflammations. Oculi (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand Categories as well as I should so this seemed to be the appropriate forum to ask my original question. As to more public?...still seems to be the appropriate place - if someone wants to post a link to this discussion on a Village pump or whatever that's fine with me. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Michael basically said that the article should only be in the eponymous category" – I wrote nothing of the sort. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was David Epstein. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hank Williams is in the hidden category Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians, so it is not an orphan regardless of what report it is showing up in. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hidden categories dont count for this purpose. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Sez who? WP:SUBCAT: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." If only one member of that subcategory belongs to the parent category, the parent category is inappropriate. Rathfelder's edits at Category:Johann Sebastian Bach, Category:Ludwig van Beethoven, Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Category:William Shakespeare ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed most of Rathfelder's recent edits should be reverted. Oculi (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

How is Category:Charles Dickens different from those that upset you? Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not, and it wasn't until User:Dimadick changed it in May 2013. A clarification by Dimadick would be welcome. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And Category:Arthur Conan Doyle? It appears to me that your interpretation of categorisation policy is a minority view. There are hundreds of thousands of categories which do not comply with your interpretation. It also appears to me to undermine the proper management of categories. These uncategorised categorised are immune from scrutiny and many of them are in need of attention. Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand Bednarek's interpretation at all. It would make many categories practically invisible. Dimadick (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the logic of their position. They object to me making categories visible. Have a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories - the products of this policy. Rathfelder (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, you know for a fact that I also disapprove of edits like this. Why are you choosing just one of the categories that Merge Records is in to add to Category:Merge Records? Why not all of them? This is arbitrary and against consensus. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The question is not what you approve of. The policy is pretty clear. All categories should be categorised. I am quite happy to put Category:Merge Records into all appropriate categories - and I would then take the article itself out of most of them. But I dont see that it is right to leave it hidden so it gets no scrutiny. And I dont see why it should be treated differently from all the other companies which have eponymous categories in Category:American record labels. Rathfelder (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Rathfelder, You continue to act against the consensus here at categories like Category:B.B. King. Please stop. You said that you wanted discussion, if so, don't preempt it with your actions. Your fanaticism at this database report is really monomaniacal at this point and there are so many other things to do here that you can let this rest for awhile. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I dont see a concensus here. I see an attempt to subvert the fundamental principles of the categorisation system.Rathfelder (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd like to start by saying that database reports exist to serve editors. A page or category being listed in a report might mean that action is needed, it might mean that there's an edge case, it might mean that the report criteria need to be adjusted, or it could simply be an informative or statistical report where no action is warranted at all.

I recently changed the criteria for the uncategorized categories (configuration) database report, with Rathfelder, based on my understanding of the English Wikipedia's categorization system. After skimming this discussion, I would like some clarity about categories such as Category:Barack Obama. Are Michael Bednarek and Oculi saying that Category:Barack Obama is inappropriately categorized? I ask because, if this view is correct, we probably want a miscategorized categories (configuration) database report or similar to address this category and others. However, if Category:Barack Obama is appropriately categorized in categories such as Category:Presidents of the United States (along with all the other presidents), how is this category distinguishable from a category such as Category:Go Daddy? Or Category:Britney Spears, which is categorized in Category:Spears family. Is this incorrect?

Given that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of examples of categories being categorized (arbitrary edit from September 2015), there doesn't seem to be clear consensus on this issue one way or another at present. I hunted down this discussion after noticing that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars decided that a compromise position would be making categories such as Category:Wikipedia categories named after British musical groups no longer hidden. (cc: VegaDark, who's my personal category authority) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Category:Barack Obama and Category:Britney Spears suffer exactly from the problems that have been described here. They categorise the parasite Baracktrema obamai as a president of the US and "Hit Me Baby One More Time" as a member of Category:Spears family. I don't see any such problem with Category:Go Daddy. Like templates, which are categorised by their kind, not by their subject – Template:Ernest Hemingway is not in Category:Ernest Hemingway (see WP:Categorization#Template categorization) – topic categories should be categorised only into category-related categories. The key advice, as I wrote above, is in WP:SUBCAT: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." If the eponymous subject's categories are to be included in the category itself, the question arises: which ones? Why just one? Why not all? I raised this with Rathfelder User talk:Rathfelder#Your category edits need to stop. for the example of B.B. King, which he answered: "Categorisation is not an exact science. It's messy. There are many categories which could be added to others. the question is what is reasonable - where would users want to find the category?" If this were Wikipedia's guideline to categorisation, it would open the gates to endless discussions about which categories should appear where. Rahthfelder then acknowledged a further problem – that of category duplication between the subject and the eponymous category: "One common solution is indeed to transfer the more generally applicable categories from the article to the eponymous category." This has understandably led to disagreement on his talk page about the proper place of Category:British Poets Laureate – in Ted Hughes or in Category:Ted Hughes? These odd and inintended consequences can be avoided by not applying the subject's categories to the eponymous category. Contrary to what has been said here, this will not leave any category uncategorised – there is always Category:Wikipedia categories named after people… or other Category:Eponymous categories…. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would welcome wider debate about these issues. Practice varies across different fields. It seems clear that in popular music categories the eponymous categories are generally left in the hidden category Articles named after something. But that is not so in organisation categories. There are thousands of eponymous categories for companies, sports clubs and other organisations and they are generally put in visible categories. I can see the particular problem for pop music, and I think it would help a bit if the Articles named after something categories were visible. It's clear that many editors dont know or understand them. It's also obvious that making them hidden means they dont get any scrutiny. Looking through the uncategorised category database there were plenty of categories which needed attention or deletion. We could also do with some guidance about when a category should be applied to an article, when to an eponymous category, and when to both. And maybe it is possible to work on the uncategorised categories database so it doesnt include categories which are satisfactory as they are.

I think that the distinction between topic categories and set categories is lost on many editors, and the guidance says explicitly that it can be ignored. For example Category:Harare contains all sorts of stuff, most of which is not a capital city. Category:Humans contains of lots of articles not about humans. Category:Walt Disney contains all sorts of stuff about the company, not the man. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that categories should almost always be included in some other category. Category:Merge Records should certainly be categorized somewhere; though I find it excessive to suggest that it must be in all of Merge Records' categories. Perhaps there should be a guideline for which categories contain eponymous categories, and which do not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

categorytree tags

After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Documentation is at mw:Extension:CategoryTree. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a request for how to use the tag, the question is whether or not they should be used. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"People from Foo isn't always Fooian"

Were these "not always baseball players from Foo is Fooian" edits legitimate? Even the category explanation on most of those categories says following: "This category is for Fooian baseball players who currently play or have played in Major League Baseball." 85.76.163.182 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They are not, no.

There are various ways to define "Japanese" or "Welsh" or "Peruvian" or whatever. One is by ethnicity, one is by citizenship, one is by geographic origin, one is by residence, and there are several others.

And different editors have different opinions. But a very usual -- maybe the most usual -- is geographic origin. Lets say you were born and raised in Burma, but your parents were French, French is your first language, and you aren't a Burmese citizen. You would be described as Burmese. Probably, to assist the reader since it's a bit complicated, as "A Burmese artist of French ethnicity", or as French-Burmese.

I mean, what else? We can hardly call you "French" if you've never even been there. What your citizenship is is useful info, but not key to defining you. (IMO; other editors might disagree.)

So, then, if you are "from" Japan -- you were raised there, say -- then you ARE Japanese. So the editors position that not all people from Japan are Japanese, is not correct. (Debatable cases can be discussed at that individual's article; but the presence of one or two rare exceptions at the margins is not sufficient to decouple entire categories.)

The edits should be rolled back and the editor engaged. Perhaps she has compelling arguments, and can present them here. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This may be an argument for more categories to use "from Foo" instead of "Fooish", for clarity and consistency. -- Beland (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no easy answer to this kind of problem. To say a person is "From" somewhere can also be taken to mean that they are no longer there. And as far as nationality goes - the law is complex and varies from one country to another. Not everyone born in a country takes on that nationality. It's very rare to find anything explicit in a biographical article about the nationality of the subject. Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is no easy answer. However, here we are concerned with, and only with, how people are categorized.

Assuming that we are not going to stop categorizing people by country (we're not) and that we're not going to try to push thru some strict rubric for assigning a person to a country, where they have to meet several criteria (we're not), we have to look at at the totality of the person, but generally where they were raised determines their country for categorization purposes. I believe that is how it is most often done. That is why I say that the edits OP mentioned are not legit.

Sometimes people are raised in two countries, or several. Sometimes there are other complicating factors. Son of an American diplomat, raised in Ghana and Madagascar and Libya and Thailand -- what is he? If you move to Japan at age 1, you are raised in Japan. If you move there at age 20, you're not. What if you moved there at age 9, tho? And so on.

If the person making the disputed edits had picked out specific cases, that'd be different. "This particular guy should not be considered 'Japanese' because [reason]", that's fine. But that's not what the editor is doing. He's saying "Not all Baseball players from Japan are Japanese, therefore we can't categorize any baseball player as Japanese (or American, or anything else)". Extrapolated from baseball players to other vocations, that would be an extremely radical position. It would be a huge, huge change to categorization of people, and it's not going to happen. Since it's not going to happen, doing it where the editor did is not legit. Let him first run a CENT RfC and see if he can get this radical change put thru, and good luck with that.

(N.B. Also "from" certainly does not imply removal from the place. "Where ya from?" "Oh, from here, lived here all my life." And law doesn't matter. We're trying to help the reader find other people from the same mileu. Suppose a person was born and raised in Japan, is of Japanese ethnicity, speaks Japanese as their native tongue, writes in Japanese, lives in Japan and in fact has never been outside Japan, and forth. Suppose this person changes their citizenship registration from Japanese to Israeli (let's assume this is possible). Would we remove this person from the category of Japanese writers, so that the reader would not be able to find him in that category? Why? How would this help the reader? Once you avow that this is a valid point, it's just a matter of discussion where the margins are. What if he goes to live in Israel? What if he's lived in Israel for thirty years and writes in Hebrew now? And so forth. (N.B. many people are categorized under two nationalities and more, and this would be an example of where that'd work.)

TL;DR: people are from where they are raised. People who are from X are Xish (Xian, whatever) for the purposes of categorization. Individuals may be opted out of this general rule on a case-by-case basis. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Empathy and autism

Can we get some opinions at Talk:Empathy#Removed category:autism? A permalink or the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title

There are many categories that use the turn of phrase committed suicide in the category title. I opened this RfC to establish if there is a general consensus to stop using this term which some believe is disparaging and has fallen out of favor.

RFC: The term committed suicide should not be used in category titles unless there is good reason to do so instead of alternatives such as: suicide / died by suicide / died by apparent suicide / killed themselve(s) or other alternatives. We can discuss case by case later. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom – Suicide is legal in most of the world. In my opinion, putting people in categories with committed suicide in the title is violation of WP:BLP. They did not commit anything. Most of them suffered from an apparent mental illness and sadly ended their lives. Suicide is a symptom and not a crime to be committed. The recent suicide of Jeffrey Epstein shows that the term is clearly not favored any more and is no longer a COMMONNAME.[1][2][3][4][5] The New York Times which initially published an article under the title "Jeffrey Epstein Commits Suicide at Manhattan Jail" a few hours later changed the headline to Jeffrey Epstein Dead in Suicide at Manhattan Jail, Officials Say
• Support I agree this is a case where the usage in the majority of the world should take precedence for the global category. Individual pages should be based on the local nation/how reported, but in categorization, we should pick the most neutral way. --Masem (t) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Changing to oppose/keep based on the RFC noted below. --Masem (t) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Masem: please read the section of RFC titled Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_140#Uninvolved_close?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I see nothing in that section that challenges the clear opposition to standardizing on "died by suicide" and staying with "committed suicide". --Masem (t) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        Masem, but it does clearly indicate the RfC was malformed and ill-conceived and not conclusive. The closing note reads: "There is a clear consensus here that we should not require this type of alternative language. On this much, even OP as the sole supporter seems to agree. Although, as before, there is no policy mandating nor prohibiting any particular phrasing on any particular article, there is also a fairly broad agreement that "committed" remains the more common phrasing. Otherwise, WP:COIN is the proper venue for discussing conflicts of interest, and such a discussion is not central to the issue of whether the community has broad support for this proposal, which it does not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        I don't see any concern on the closure that the RFC was malformed, but initiated by a COI; as it did not change the status quo, the result remains valid. Note it did not mean we also are required to standardize on "committed suicide" either. If you want to start a new RFC to cover "committed suicide" vs "died by suicide" as the standard language (eg the stuff you have below from WHO is compelling to add to this suggested RFC, but we need the community to review that given the last RFC.) --Masem (t) 20:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        Why can't we start with category titles? The previous RfC was about actual Wikipedia in-article language which is a more nuanced discussion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        It would leave a major disconnect between article space and category space. That should never be the case. --Masem (t) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        In such a case, I would strongly favour updating both category and namespace use to 'died by suicide' or equivalent. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 21:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

        The community has already favored to continue using the current, common term at this RfC and explicitly rejected all weird alternatives. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: We had a big RfC about "committed suicide" last year: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Stigmatizing language regarding suicide. Consensus was against using "died by suicide." Consensus was that "committed suicide" is standard language. I would think that continuing to use it applies to categories as well. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:Med to this new discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. Additional notices in other notice boards is welcome. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep committed suicide and standardize to that name when it's not, per previous RFCs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep committed suicide. The RFCs are clear. Also it is standard language and does not necessarily imply a crime or immoral act. I am against artificially sanitizing language. The Wikipedia should reflect reality as it is, not what we would like it to be. And that includes language as it is commonly used. --Hecato (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep committed suicide. It's the standard term, there is nothing pejorative about it. SnowFire (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • [6], [7], [8], and [9] all disagree with you about the use of the term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular believe the Wikipedia does not exist purely to summarize the opinions and attitudes of big news outlets. Even if one might get that impression when reading current event articles. If these outlets wish to sanitize their language in order to influence the way regular people speak, then that is up to their editorial discretion. We are not a news outlet though, we are an encyclopedia. We don't do activism. --Hecato (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It does, however, summarize the consensus of reliable scholarly works on the subject:

• However, in 2015 one in eight articles still used this outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase.[10] (emphasis added)
• The phrase ‘committed suicide’ should not be used because it implies criminality, thereby contributing to the stigma experienced by those who have lost a loved one to suicide and discouraging suicidal individuals from seeking help.[11] by World Health Organization
• “Attempted suicide”, “took their own life”, “died by suicide” and “ended their life” were however considered most acceptable. We argue that academic and media guidelines should promote use of these phrases.[12]
• Suicide is a cause of death. Do we ever say that someone ‘committed cancer’ or ‘committed heart failure’, even when they may have lived lifestyles that contributed to such diseases (for example, smoking or having a high fat diet)? Even suggesting this sounds ludicrous, and yet every day we see such examples in relation to suicide. So, let us commit to being vigilant and challenge the use of stigmatising language whenever we hear it used in connection with suicide.[13]

Scholars and media all say you are wrong. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a bit of a non sequitur. These opinions and suggestions would make wonderful additions to an article about attitudes regarding suicide. In the end they are still attempts to change the status quo (i.e. activism), not reflections of the current status quo. Maybe one day they will change the way regular people (Edit: I mean the general public here) speak. Then we can update our style accordingly. If you have some studies that show regular people don't say "commit suicide" anymore, then I might change my !vote. --Hecato (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

We use WP:FORMAL language. Not what "regular people" say. What is colloquially used is besides the point. I have already demonstrated above that RS use the terms I have suggested.[14][15][16][17][18]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" is not informal language. And the style used by reliable sources is of no importance. We care about the reliability of their facts, not about what kind of style they choose to express them. --Hecato (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I never suggested it was. You suggested that we should use "commit suicide" because that is what "regular people" say. I have shown you that RS use the terms I have suggested. I have also shown you good cause why our style needs to change. "Killed themselves" is formal and factual. "Committed suicide" is an "outdated, largely inaccurate and stigmatised phrase."[19] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Use “committed. Per previous RFCs. The word “commit” means to perform an action... not necessarily a bad one... for example, when one helps another person one “commits an act of kindness”. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Though certainly meaning "to perform", it is hard to argue that it doesn't typically add non-neutral connotations to actions it's attached to (e.g. "commit a sex act", "commit homosexuality" or "commit an abortion"). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep committed suicide per HEADBOMB--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep committed suicide. I would be ok with something else non-euphemistic like Category:People who killed themselves but I fear the pressure to avoid "suicide" is part of a push to keep everything subjectless and in passive voice to avoid the possibility of casting blame on anyone for doing anything offensive. That sort of cover-up is not what we do here. See WP:EUPHEMISM. And "died by suicide" sounds horribly non-idiomatic to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: That is exactly what I am suggested. We can use "killed themselves" as suggest in the RfC. I have no issues with using the word "suicide". The objection is to the word "committed". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • But "committed" is the idiomatic verb to use with "suicide". The only reason for omitting the verb is to omit the subject and pretend that nobody did anything bad, it just happened on its own with nobody to blame. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

      You are wrong. That is a red herring. No scholars objects to the term "suicide". Please read the articles above. It is the word "committed"[20] that people have a problem with. We can say "attempted" or any other phrase with "suicide" in it. The problem is the correlelation to "committed murder", "committed infantcide", or "committed patricide". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

      Well, "attempted" is wrong too. You cannot attempt what you have already committed. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Attempted" is fine - there's nothing grammatically or logically wrong with "attempted X" or "attempted to commit X" for any reasonable value of X, where the attempt did not succeed. E.g. all of these are valid:

"Smith attempted to murder Brown."
"Smith was charged with attempted murder"
"Smith attempted suicide"
"Smith attempted to commit suicide".

In all cases, Smith's attempt failed, and Brown and Smith are both still alive. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mitch Ames and Ammarpad, neither of you seem to be following me. I was trying to say to David Eppstein that the problem is not the word "suicide". There is no problem with the word "suicide" or the use of the word "suicide" in combination with other words; for example, in a different situation when the "suicide" was not completed to say "attempted suicide". Obviously, I am NOT saying we should change the categories for people who completed suicide to "attempted suicide". I am saying that "committed suicide" is not accurate because it is insensitive, ignorant, outdated and inaccurate. They did not commit anything. Saying they committed something implies criminality no matter how much you may split hairs and say it does not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs No, I understand you clearly and you're wrong still. "They did not commit anything" is patently false. They commit suicide. It's the same meaning as the way we say "engineers commit code everyday" UNLESS you deliberately decide to give it another meaning. You're advocating for Wikipedia to help promote a fledgling campaign that sought to abolish usage of the phrase. The first link in your statement above stated what actual this is all about in no uncertain terms: "By changing the way we speak..." No, Wikipedia will not change the way people speak. That's no Wikipedia's business. Wikipedia is not a laboratory for forcibly testing emerging social changes like these. Giving that the community has explicitly rejected this change in various RfCs and here, honestly this is getting into territory of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: my comment that "Attempted" is fine... was a response to Ammarpad's assertion that "attempted" is wrong too, independently of "commit". It is not an opinion on the use of "commit". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Well, since you're replying to me I have to say I still disagree. You misunderstood me. We are talking of suicide that has already happened here. And that's why I said one cannot attempt suicide after they already committed it and thus "attempted" is wrong. Category:People who attempted suicide was deleted in 2011 because we have no business categorizing those who "attempted" and failed. Your examples are all not relevant to what I said. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Committed suicide - both clearly the common usage but also not a usage I've actually seen interpreted poorly (at least in the sense that it's all dependent on the phrasing). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support change to 'died by suicide' Per WHO, APA, APS guidelines as well as BBC and AP. Essentially all scholarly and media guidelines recommend strongly against 'committed'. Either 'Died by suicide', 'killed themself'. With regard to only citing previous RfCs as the decision, consensus can change. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 21:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Further note: Such a change would not be an attempt to change language, write great wrongs, or advocate as suggested in previous RfCs. It would be bringing WP into line with essentially every other professional body. In fact, it is only advocacy/pov groups that recommend 'committed'. All other neutral bodies recommend 'died by' or equivalent. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as is "commit" just happens to be the verb that collocates with "suicide". The phrase does not imply criminality or sin. It means the same thing as "died by suicide", except it is by far the more common phrase. "Commit suicide" is the common, neutral English term for deliberately killing oneself. As long as that's the case, that's what Wikipedia should use. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Can you provide any reference that it is "committed suicide" considered neutral? All professional, academic, clinical and journalistic organisations that I can find consider it non-neutral. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Committed suicide, or if we don't like "committed", suicided. Deliberately killing oneself, for whatever reason, is an act and should be described by an verb that explicitly denotes that action. "Died by ...", like "died of...", implies that something (else) killed the person, rather then the person killing themselves. In any case the word "died" in "died by suicide" is redundant (suicide, by definition, causes death), so we can unambiguously remove it when we use the verb "suicided". Per WP:TERSE, there is no reason to use multiple words (especially redundant words) when a single unambiguous word will suffice. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  We can simply say killed themselves. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem with "killed themself" (singular) is that it does not explicitly indicate intent. A person who drives too fast, unintentionally loses control of the car, crashes and dies, could be said to have "killed himself accidentally", whereas "suicided" is unambiguously intentional. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors here will never accept suicided. There is no confusion that "killed themself" is means "intentionally killed themself". When I say "Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional. The only thing that "Wilson killed Brown" does not imply is criminality. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

..."Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional. — I suggest that many/most convictions for manslaughter would invalidate that assertion - depending on your legal jurisdiction, "manslaughter" typically means killing someone (as a result of some other illegal action, but) without the intent to kill. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, I did not say "Wilson commits manslaughter" does not imply criminality, did I? See Straw man. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You said that "Wilson killed Brown", no one is confused that the killing was intentional, which to me implies that "Wilson killed Brown" is unambiguous about intention to kill. My point was that "killed" (Brown, or self) does not unambiguously denote intent - manslaughter is one example of killing someone without intent to kill. So saying that someone "killed X" could mean "killed intentionally" or it could mean "killed accidentally". Thus "killed themself" is ambiguous (it covers accidents) and less informative than "suicided". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. A top story on the BBC website currently begins "Questions have been raised as to how ... was able to apparently commit suicide ...". When/if the rest if the world changes then wp could change. DexDor ^(talk) 06:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The BBC story used to say "apparently commit suicide" and now says "apparently kill himself". We are quickly becoming the last legitimate place on the internet that uses this ignorant term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nah, I've included quite a number of links below that refutes that including BBC and The New York Times still using it. Claiming that it is an ignorant term is hyperbole.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep common phrase, the person committed to doing it - and did it. It's not "convicted suicider". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep we use standard English. Committed is standard English. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep committed suicide per reasons in the previous RfCs. Contrary to what the activists (POV pushers) say here, not all news organizations follow the push for "political correctness" and we intentionally do not follow AP guidelines. We're not censored. This story is from a reputable news source and as for the worldview, an example would be Al jazeera's usage of the term. None of the influential style guides recommend against it. Commit has multiple meanings and does not automatically imply criminality so those stating that have gotten it wrong. Also suicided sounds and looks every bit as stupid as homicided <== Both daft.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

suicided sounds and looks every bit as stupid as homicided — On the contrary "suicide" is a verb, and has been since the mid-19th century, according to SOED, so "suicided" is a perfectly legitimate conjugation. "Homicide" is only a noun, not a verb (in English), so "homicided" is not a word. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as is. A classic example of a solution looking for a problem. "Commiting suicide" has one clear unambiguous meaning in English worldwide. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This would be a great topic for linguists and others to research. For example, what does the average person mean when they use the phrase "commit suicide"? It's likely that the phrase has its roots in "to do something wrong; perpetrate". But when people use the phrase, "he committed suicide" these days do they mean, "he perpetrated the crime of suicide" or "he perpetrated an immoral act: suicide"? Or do they mean, "he killed himself" without any moral connotation?

I don't know the answer, although I suspect the phrase no longer connotes perpetrating an immoral or illegal act, at least in the United States.

Historical meaning of the verb, "commit" and its association with suicide:

commit, v. (transitive) II. To do something wrong; to perpetrate. 9. a. To carry out (a reprehensible act); to perpetrate (a crime, sin, offence, etc.). Cf. to commit suicide at Phrases 6.

Phrases 6. transitive. to commit suicide: to end one's own life intentionally; to kill oneself. Also figurative and in extended use. Cf. sense 9a. Historically, suicide was regarded as a crime in many societies. Laws against suicide existed in English common law until 1961.

Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (2015), https://oed.com/view/Entry/37160

Arguments for NOT using "commit suicide" are linked below. I post these sources simply as a point of reference, not to support a wholesale change in how Wikipedia talks about people who committed suicide.

Suicide and language: Why we shouldn't use the ‘C’ word https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/inpsych/2013/february/beaton

Language Matters: Why We Don't Say "Committed Suicide" https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide

Why I Don’t Say My Son ‘Committed’ Suicide https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/October-2018/Why-I-Don-t-Say-My-Son-%E2%80%98Committed-Suicide

Commit* to change? A call to end the publication of the phrase ‘commit* suicide’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341764/

Suicide and Language https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/suicideandlanguage/

The language of suicide http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/1990/1/language_of_suicide.pdf

Suicide and language https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1229556/pdf/cmaj_159_3_239.pdf

• Keep as is, for now. If the efforts to change the phrasing succeed, then we can adjust. I would love to see some research as mentioned above, but without empirical evidence, I have to go with my perception that most people do not mean to imply immorality or criminal behavior when they use the idiom, "commit suicide". (idiom, n. - "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words" - Google search).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Markworthen, you can ask WP:Linguistics to weigh in. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia follows, not leads. Needs more time for society to figure out. People commit crimes, people commit moral atrocities. People committing suicide? Holdover from another era. -- GreenC 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is; "committed suicide" is the common term. The word "commit" does not necessarily imply criminality. It is not illegal to commit to wedding vows, to commit code to a repository, or to commit someone for psychiatric treatment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the common phrase "commit a good deed". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is. "Commit suicide" is the most common expression in English and that is what we should be using. If the language changes then we can revisit that. Categories would also not be the best place to start changing terminology, given that a previous RfC declined to make the same change for articles. Hut 8.5 15:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Happy with "Died by Suicide" But do not see this as a huge deal. One is prefered by high quality sources, the other is more common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• The problem here is that the word “commit” DOES convey a value judgment ... HOWEVER, the judgement changes depending on WHAT act one commits. Commit an act of kindness - the value judgement is positive... commit a felony - the value judgement is negative. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as "commit suicide" or perhaps "killed themselves". I realize there are now sources using new phrasing. However, it still feels stilted and is not common parlance by any means to use the other alternatives. Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support change to 'died by suicide' The World Health Organization, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the corresponding practice parameters and guidelines all urge the use of "died by suicide," as does the NIMH [21]. This is the consensus of all the caring professions that work with suicidal individuals regularly. The change in language is guided by qualitative research and consumer input, and it is intended to reduce risk and blame.

Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association uses "commit suicide" as seen here on their main page about it. I've also supplied other "caring professions" in the collapsed box below that shows that there isn't a consensus of "all" as you suggest.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Continue using "committed suicide". These are not victims of someone else's choice: they chose to kill themselves, and the victims are not those who died but those whom they forced to pick up the pieces afterward. We need to use the common term instead of sugarcoating it. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nyttend, why can't we say Category:People who killed themselves just like you did in your comment. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - I've worked with many patients suffering from major depressive disorder and other serious psychiatric illness, many of whom experience chronic suicidal ideation, some of whom have attempted suicide, and a few of whom killed themselves. I've also experienced suicide in my extended family. I agree that family members suffer tremendously. So do (or did) the patients. The derisive tone of your statement transforms it into an argument to not use "commit".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as is, per previous RFCs listed above. Gimubrc (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is. It's simply the better-known and more-used phraseology. Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - nannyism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, keep I guess, and I mean as far as the "judging" part goes, I mean, for my part I'm not generally in favor of people killing themselves, usually. I'm not even neutral about it really. Are we supposed to be now? I did not get this memo. If someone's kid kills themselves, I'm more likely to be like "Oh jeez, I'm sorry. What a tragedy. You must be really hurting. I really wish she had not done that." or whatever, not "Oh, OK. Well, her decision I guess. Hey want to go to Starbucks?" This is because I am not amoral. The Wikipedia is not removed from the moral universe. Nothing is, whether you like it or not. Whatever language you use reflects a value judgement. We are not going to replace "Genocide" with "Population Adjustment" either, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Its fine as is HAL333 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. It doesn't imply criminality, any more than fighting disease, combating climate change or going to Ohio. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  You've confused two senses of the word here (Wiktionary's sixth and second senses, respectively). "Commit" when followed by "to" carries no connotation of criminality, but the separate sense (apparently) used in "commit suicide" (which lacks the following "to") does carry that connotation, at least per the Cambridge Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Keep it is the most common term, still in widespread use. CThomas³ (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per many of the above arguments, with a special nod to Herostratus. Lepricavark (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep we are not a platform for advocating what SHOULD be done but reflect what IS done and what language IS used. This term is part of common English. I also don't support whitewashing out language to remove any historical vestigaes. The vast vast majority of use is nonperjorative and we should reflect the commonality of use here. Also the last thing we need is an additional rule on this site. Keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is per TonyBallioni. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a committed Wikipedian, I'm happy to commit my views to print and say that committed suicide is by far the best and most well-understood term to use. Keep as the term of least surprise. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support for rename likely died by suicide This was taught in my medical school nearly a decade ago, to avoid committed terminology. All the professional associations and arguments for rename mentioned and cited below. The commonest name is inappropriate. WP:COMMONNAME is unable to cover this type of issue in policy IMO. --[E.3][chat2][me] 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Committed suicide. As per many of the above, 1. Committed doesn't just mean a wrongdoing (tell it to a committed Christian/Jew/Muslim, etc, or a committed Conservative/Democrat, etc); 2. It is still used in common parlance, in academic circles, in journalism, etc etc. We don't trailblaze to right great wrongs, we follow and reflect what everyone else does, and at the moment, it's still with "Committed suicide". - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support for (in order of preference) "died by suicide", "killed themselves" and "suicided". The people quoting past RfCs don't seem to have read their conclusions ('insufficient support to prohibit ["committed suicide"]' is not the same as 'must use "committed suicide" in all cases' and 'no policy mandating nor prohibiting any particular phrasing' is not a reason in favour of one particular phrase). As we see from Coffeeandcrumb's links and the evidence that some (not all) NYT and BBC articles are beginning to avoid the phrase, "committed suicide" is unlike "died by suicide" or "killed themselves" in that it is a very loaded term, and our categorisation particularly that relating to real people must be neutral. Additionally, we see above and below that the WHO, APA, APA (different one), NIMH and many others all recommend against "committed suicide". So this "we're not here to right great wrongs" nonsense is not based on the actual current state of the world, which is that "committed suicide" might be a very commonly used phrase but it's one advised against by high quality sources and guidelines, and there are several terms which are not advised against and don't share the non-neutral baggage.
  I'm also rather concerned by a couple of comments. David Eppstein's I fear the pressure to avoid "suicide" is part of a push to keep everything subjectless and in passive voice to avoid the possibility of casting blame on anyone for doing anything offensive is quite concerning—I usually feel grief rather than personal offence in response to a suicide. Hopefully I've misunderstood. Additionally, I feel that some arguments are a bit disingenuous. Surely we all understood that "commit" has multiple meanings in different contexts and that the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• The argument that "commit suicide" is a loaded term purely because of the historical usage is an argument from etymology, which is a linguistic fallacy. There is evidence that some organizations choose not to use the term, but other uses of the word "commit" are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Red Rock Canyon: The argument that "commit suicide" is a loaded term purely because of the historical usage [...] is a linguistic fallacy — It may well be but that's an argument I didn't make—note the word "purely". I wrote plenty of other things relating to why the term is loaded; taken in conjunction, they form a coherent argument. but other uses of the word "commit" are completely irrelevant to this discussion — Ding ding ding! Precisely the point I made. In all seriousness, it is only when you look at the whole comment that you see the full argument I am making. Please don't cherry-pick and strawman me. — Bilorv (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was responding specifically to this part of your comment: the meaning in the phrase "committed suicide" is, to quote Wiktionary, a derivation from the meaning To do (something bad); to perpetrate, as a crime, sin, or fault. (Take a look at the bits on etymology at Suicide terminology#Controversy over use of "commit" and "committed".) That's what makes the term loaded, non-neutral and unsuitable for Wikipedia. I don't think it's accurate to say that I'm "strawmanning" you or cherry-picking your comments. If to you that sentence doesn't mean that part of your reason is based on the etymology of "commit", then it's not my fault for misunderstanding you, but your fault for writing the opposite of what you meant. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not really happy with the use "commit", but the other options don't seem any better at all. "Died by/of suicide" sounds too clinical and somewhat inconsiderate outside of use in statistics; "suicided" sounds like a neologism. I would support "killed themselves" for lack of a better option although it sounds somewhat informal. Daß Wölf 05:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- Considering his background, I am most convinced by Doc James' comments. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Change the category titles - though I don't much care which option we change to. Many clear arguments have been put forth that "committed suicide" is not ideal phrasing. I see no requirement or suggestion in Wikipedia:Category names that we use the most common, most idiomatic, most familiar, or most sensitive phrasing for category names (though if there is guidance in some other guideline, I'd be happy if someone could point me to it). Many proposed alternatives (died by suicide, killed themselves, et al) are plenty clear to readers and avoid the drawbacks of "committed suicide". So I see no downside to making this change, and some potential upside. Ajpolino (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• The first guideline listed on WP:CATNAME is this: Standard article naming conventions apply. Presumably that includes everything listed in WP:TITLE, including WP:UCRN. The most commonly used name is generally preferred. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• The full quote is Standard article naming conventions apply; in particular, do not capitalize regular nouns except when they come at the beginning of the title, which I read to mean grammatical conventions of article titles apply to category titles. That said, I wasn't around and haven't looked back to see if there's past discussion to explain the intent of that line. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Change the category titles to "Died by Suicide" per the sources Coffeeandcrumbs cites below. ~mitch~ (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Use "died by suicide": Mainly because it's simpler, clearer language, but also because it is more formal, and because it avoids the obsolete and unfortunate connotation of criminality found in the etymology of "commit suicide". —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is; it's how English is used, it's been RfC'd previously; it's better not to try and use WP to change language, which this proposal seems to be doing (as in previous RfC). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose change; keep as-is I've been seeing too many edits from proposer, Coffeeandcrumbs, like this ill-thought newspeak and I hope to start seeing less. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, that was a personal attack. I welcome you to my talk page to point out this purported pattern. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support for change - The sources provided that discuss the term seem to unanimously support the change. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as is, solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• 'Strong support. Whether or not the RfC a year ago was correct at the time, it no longer is. I'm not saying we should keep up with every fashion in usage, but this change seems to be consistent with the gradual move of idioms towards ethical neutrality. (the view expressed above that "committed" is neutral does not seem correct--I can not think of any idiomatic use of it except with a crime. We could say "X committed a bad act" butwe would not say "X committed a good act"or "X committed an illness". (X committed himself to doing something" is a different meaning altogether. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources

Given the overwhelming number of sources recommending "committed suicide" as the significantly inferior phrasing, are there any sources to support that "committed suicide" is a superior choice?

Common parlance vs technical parlance

Wikipedia tends use technically correct terms and formal language unless they are so unclear that it be misunderstood by a reader. Are there any reliable sources that state that "died by suicide" is likely to be misunderstood?

False. We use the WP:COMMONNAME over the technically correct one. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the examples at commonname refer to when the technical name would be misunderstood (e.g."Trisomy 21") but "died by suicide" is unlikely to be misunderstood. We use "penis" rather than "cock" despite it being less common parlance. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 20:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Going against recommendations

Are there any other examples where Wikipedia deliberately uses a term that is recommended against by all professional, academic, clinical, journalistic, legal, military organisations?

• Not all professional, academic, clinical, journalistic, legal, military organizations recommend against this term so it is a non-sequitur.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  You are correct that term 'all' was hyperbolic. I have corrected this with a more constructive list in the section below. What would be more accurate would be that for all organisations that have a stated position on the matter, all reliable sources that I can find make the same recommendation. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a neutral term

If "committed suicide" is considered a neutral term, what are the sources that support this? Literally all sources I can find specifically contest that assertion.

Not especifally more common term

In a general Google search: "committed suicide" = 20M, "died by suicide" = 10M, "killed him/herself" = 12M which are not huge differences. Is this sufficient to overrule all other arguments?

• False. It is clearly the more common term.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, what's the source of the discrepancy between the data you quote and the google searches: "died by suicide" 10M/"dies by suicide" = 12M and "committed suicide" 20M/"commits suicide" = 13M? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 20:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ngrams are from published books/works while yours are from the open web.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, we do not have to use the very most common term when a better alternative is common enough and more appropriate. See this other Ngram. There are alternatives. We do not have to be so set in our ways, especially when we have a large group of experts in the field telling us that the term is not NPOV or appropriate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The correct ngram for what you are comparing is here. It isn't for "the professionals" to decide nor push their opinions of political correctness on everyone else. These perennial debates are the result of unwelcome activism.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No, adding "killed herself", "killed himself", and "killed themselves" together was the correct NGram. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a euphamism

Similarly, are there any reliable sources that state that "died of suicide" is a euphamism?

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Some reliable sources and professional organizations who use committed suicide or commit suicide  — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Some reliable sources and professional organizations who use committed suicide or commit suicide: National Alliance on Mental Illness Cleveland Clinic The American Bar Association American Psychological Association The American Medical Association History channel Forbes The New Yorker Stanford Children's Health Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy New Scientist Bureau of Labor Statistics ("suicides were committed") Psychology Today New York Times Los Angeles Times Scientific American Deutsche Welle US Center for Biotechnology Information CBS News France24 The Straits Times Washington Post Dictionaries: Oxford Cambridge Collins Macmillan Merriam-Webster Wiktionary (with an understanding that it is circular and user-generated)

Some reliable sources and professional organisations who use and also specifically recommend as the preferred term died by suicide T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to keep the list to a similar length to the one to the left, but is heavily truncated to include only those that both use and explicitly recommend alternatives to "commit". Associated Press World Health Organisation Centres for Disease Control National Institute of Mental Health American Psychiatric Association Australian Psychological Society Crisis Journal International Risk Management Institute United Stated Navy Government of New Zealand Government of Canada Government of Maine Government of Alberta Australian Press Council National Union of Journalists, Scotland K-12 Toolkit for Mental Health Promotion and Suicide Prevention Center for Suicide Prevention Suicide Prevention Resource Center Speaking of Suicide Beyond Blue Everymind Samaritans CNN Dictionary.com

The New York Times which initially published an article under the title "Jeffrey Epstein Commits Suicide at Manhattan Jail" a few hours later changed the headline to Jeffrey Epstein Dead in Suicide at Manhattan Jail, Officials Say. The BBC did the same thing (see links above). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

But The New York Times just published this piece a few minutes ago with it in there, "Mr. Epstein may have tried to commit suicide three weeks earlier".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Michelle Carter, 20, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after she encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide by text message and phone call." from "How text messages led to a suicide" by BBC News.
• "Man Commits Suicide By Jumping In front Of Train In Israel." from BBC Two - Horizon: Stopping Male Suicide link
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly 'died by suicide' to prevent suicidal contagion The reason a growing consensus in the psychological and media communities to use the term "died by suicide" is emerging is to prevent suicidal contagion. When suicide is mentioned in the media, it can lead to suicidal contagion among readers if not handled properly. Suicidal contagion is well documented and occurred in the aftermath of Robin Williams' death among many others. Suicides were 10% higher for four months after he died. It is recommended that media outlets do not focus on the methods of death or sensationalizes the suicide. It is also recommended to mention hotline numbers and other ways to get support if one is in crisis. As a person who has experienced depression myself, I don't want to research this deeply to keep my own mental health afloat, so I won't add many sources, but there are many. The consensus among medical/psychological organizations and media outlets is growing stronger. Wikipedia should follow suit. -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RS that use "died by suicide"

Publication	Articles that pointedly avoid "committed suicide" and use "died by suicide"
CNN	[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
The Wall Street Journal	[31][32][33]
The New York Times	[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]
NBC News	[41][42][43][44][45][46]
CBS News	[47][48][49][50][51]
ABC News	[52][53][54][55][56][57]
NPR	[58][59][60][61][62]
Variety	[63][64][65][66][67]
The Cut by New York (magazine)	[68][69]
Other U.S.	[70][71]
Other UK	[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]
Other Canadian	[80][81][82][83]
Other Australian	[84][85][86][87][88][89]

Just some material for review. "Died by suicide" seems perfectly fine for all these organizations above that use it very COMMONly. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Other categories

Most of the sister categories use the form Category:deaths from X [90], so why not "Category:Deaths from suicide"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Support using alternatives. Here in the UK Wikipedia stands out as using out-moded terminology that makes you look less authoritative. The National Union of Journalists (surely an organisation that is against self-censorship) recommends against using "committed". NCISH (an influential research organisation into suicide in the UK) does not use "committed". There's also a problem with the word "suicide" because that's a legal term and it's hard to compare usage internationally: some deaths are counted as suicide in the UK, where the same death would not be counted as suicide in the US. "Killed themselves" is clearer, easier to understand, and works across different legal jurisdictions. DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Noongar sub-category for places with Noongar sites

Editors are invited to comment at WT:WA#Noongar sub-category for places with Noongar sites, on the inclusion of some places directly in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Noongar, and whether a more specific subcategory would be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Help

I'm surprised by the dispute over the inclusion of some cats on this article and would appreciate some more eyes and input. See Talk:The_Americans#Spy_thriller/drama_category_dispute. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)