Category talk:People: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
Fennel Soup (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Three of the four pages that were in this category were placed by a user who was using Category:People as though it were part of Category:Individuals. Re-categorisation of those pages has left only [[Crowd]], which is already covered by Category:Groups. Should this category continue to exist? [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | Three of the four pages that were in this category were placed by a user who was using Category:People as though it were part of Category:Individuals. Re-categorisation of those pages has left only [[Crowd]], which is already covered by Category:Groups. Should this category continue to exist? [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
:[[Person]] should probably be in "People" as well… Surely we can think of a third? --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | :[[Person]] should probably be in "People" as well… Surely we can think of a third? --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
::I suppose what really concerns me about this category is that the intent behind it is unclear. It seems to have the potential for major overlap with other, pre-existing categories. | |||
::Like, if we take a look at the placement of Categeory:People under Category:Life, then we might interpret "People" to be a category dealing with intelligent species. But that kind of information is already dealt with under Category:Lifeforms. And if we take a cue from the inclusion of [[Crowd]] instead, then we might interpret "People" as a category dealing with groups of people. But in that case there’s significant overlap with Category:Society, which already covers concepts like "Family", "Civilisation", etc. We could maybe include [[Team]] here, but that’s covered by Category:Groups just like Crowd is. | |||
::TL;DR: Assuming we want to keep Category:People, how are we actually defining it? [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:13, 22 September 2024
T:RULE OF 3[[edit source]]
Three of the four pages that were in this category were placed by a user who was using Category:People as though it were part of Category:Individuals. Re-categorisation of those pages has left only Crowd, which is already covered by Category:Groups. Should this category continue to exist? Fennel Soup ☎ 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Person should probably be in "People" as well… Surely we can think of a third? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose what really concerns me about this category is that the intent behind it is unclear. It seems to have the potential for major overlap with other, pre-existing categories.
- Like, if we take a look at the placement of Categeory:People under Category:Life, then we might interpret "People" to be a category dealing with intelligent species. But that kind of information is already dealt with under Category:Lifeforms. And if we take a cue from the inclusion of Crowd instead, then we might interpret "People" as a category dealing with groups of people. But in that case there’s significant overlap with Category:Society, which already covers concepts like "Family", "Civilisation", etc. We could maybe include Team here, but that’s covered by Category:Groups just like Crowd is.
- TL;DR: Assuming we want to keep Category:People, how are we actually defining it? Fennel Soup ☎ 22:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
