Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Categories
WikiProject icon 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.
 
WikiProject Deletion
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.
 

RfC: Sub-categories of Category:People by former country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for "from" The majority opinion is that its accurate and reads better. AlbinoFerret 01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Should sub-categories in Category:People by former country using "People ..." use "People of X" or "People from X"? Examples: Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia‎, Category:People from the Kingdom of Serbia‎ versus Category:People of the Roman Empire‎, Category:People of the German Empire‎. From a linguistic POV, "People of" points to citizens (representatives), "People from" points to emigreés (not direct representatives). All categories using "from" include citizens.--Zoupan 10:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Disagree. The subject is former countries. Note that the 19th and 20th century saw major changes in states and borders. Many individuals were born in other countries, then moved to, or simply changed their country, hence the use of "of" rather than "from".--Zoupan 08:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Categorizing is a system for sorting persons, places and things by the applicable category, be it country, age, species, etc; thus categorizing (or sorting) people by country is actually correct. I'm concerned that using from could be a bit confusing. Do we use from for place of birth, current residence, or where they once lived? What if they were born on a US military base in South Korea, raised in Japan, moved to Germany as an adult, and eventually to the US where they spent 10 years and died? Where would that person be "from"? Do we add a category for each country, or just country of birth? Perhaps I'm not understanding the purpose of the category and that is what actually needs to be better defined. Atsme📞📧 11:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, only individuals representing the country would be included, thus, of. The use of from is problematic, and would lead to overcategorization.--Zoupan 05:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • From would be most accurate and consistent with usage across Wikipedia categories. postdlf (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That is not true. The majority of categories use "of".--Zoupan 05:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The elephant in the room here is the amount of ethno-trivia we allow in categorization ... a form of over-categorization. It often does not matter what nation someone is "from". Most people should be categorized by what they did... not where they came from. Their ethno-nationality is often irrelevant and non-defining. Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • "Imagine there's no countries / It isn't hard to do..." postdlf (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
And that is why one should categorize into "of" (representative) and not "from".--Zoupan 08:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither. The format that should be used is "FOO people", as in Category:East German people or Category:Ottoman people. This is the standard format for people from current countries, so why should it not also be used for former countries? If there is no acceptable/unambiguous adjective, the name of the entity can be used, as with Category:Republic of Venice people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. I think I was mentally comparing these to people by location categories such as from cities, states, etc., but they are more akin to nationality categories, which use "FOO people". I wonder why these are almost all different...it could be it was thought that, for example, "Second French Republic people" would be more awkward, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither Were I to suggest a possible wording it would be "People associated with historical (former country)" allowing any person who has a clear association with such a country to be listed, but specifically excluding living persons for whom our standard should remain self-identification. Collect (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People_associated_with. There has been consensus that this sort of wording should not generally be used in category names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
      • See that guideline and note precisely what it deals with - and it appears that "associated with (historical country)" is not what it is intended to deal with. It deals with people associated with (a specific person or movement) such as people who were associated with Communist front organizations or people associated with John Dillinger or the like (examples where the guideline would actually apply)- I trust you recall my strong stance against any imputation in any form of "guilt by association" which is what that part of the guideline deals with. Collect (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Oppose "People Associated With" This phrase will include emigrants, immigrants, conquerors, travelers, historians, etc. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question before I make a mess[edit]

There is a Japanese political party that renamed itself last month from Party for Future Generations to Party for Japanese Kokoro. Some of the people listed at Category:Party for Future Generations politicians left the party before it changed names. Is it ok just to move the category to the new name Category:Party for Japanese Kokoro politicians? Or is there a better way to approach this? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe:: If the political party changed names because it reformed and changed policy, I would definitely go with two categories, the older one being a subcategory of the new name. For a straight rename, like with alumni of a college, we normally put everyone under the new name. You might want to check with the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to see if they know of specific examples with political parties. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect:, thanks for your comments. There has been some turnover in membership and shifting of policy, but saying that in Japanese politics is like saying McDonalds has been selling some burgers. My feeling though is that they have not changed drastically though. I will take it to the Japan and Politics project pages to get some further input from the subject experts. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

deletion of deprecated categories?[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Conference reached consensus that the "Pacific-12 conference" name was incorrect and should be replaced with "Pac-12 conference." These naming convention changes largely have been completed across articles, templates, and categories.

There are ~61 empty "* Pacific-12 *" categories (moved to/replaced by "* Pac-12 *" equivalent categories). Some examples:

Should these empty and never-to-be-used "* Pacific-12 *" categories be CfD'd? Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Category redirects: when to create, how to delete[edit]

I have two related questions about category redirects, one of which is perennial. First, I recall a longstanding consensus not to use category redirects except for likely errors and irregular naming (e.g., Category:People from Chicago). Now it seems old category names are typically being kept as redirects after a move, much like in mainspace. Did consensus change on this? (I don't really object to the practice; it just seemed like an abrupt reversal.) Second, has there ever been any consensus about whether to discuss category redirects at CfD or RfD? At RfD, I've often told readers to bring them here, since they're arguably not true redirects. They're soft redirects, but they're also actual categories in that articles can be placed in them. Given that, and the regular corpus of editors interested in categories, I think CfD is the more logical place. They've certainly been discussed in both places, but official guidance may be wise. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Category:Directors[edit]

Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.

This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)