Category talk:Fundamental

Recategorizing

All articles, it seems to me, in this category should be categorized under themes (directly or indirectly), with the possible exception of "List of categories" (which I'm not sure what the use of -- is it meant to replace Wikiquote:Category schemes)?

So here is my suggestion:

1. Move Famous last words to Last words (notability is implied in wikiquote, and "famous" is really a bad word here) and recategorize under Themes
2. Split Famous tongue twisters to pages like English tongue twisters, categorize under Category:Tongue twisters which would be categorized under Themes.
3. Categorize Advertising slogans under Themes.
4. Categorize Epitaphs under Themes.
5. Redirect List of categories to Wikiquote:Category schemes
6. Recategorize Category:People under Category:Main page
   • If all the above are done, this would leave in this category only Category:Lists and Category:Science fiction.
7. Recategorize Category:Main page under Category:Fundamental: this means the top-level will have two categories: Fundamental (which would be thought of as "Content categories") and Wikiquote (which would be thought of as "Process categories").

I believe all these suggestions will finally bring coherence to the "top-level" of the wikiquote category schemes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that 1-4 are obvious good ideas: (A) "Fundamental" itself is rather artificial, so "Themes" is better; (B) I concur that "famous" is superfluous; and (C) our tongue-twister list is getting huge. I'll have to think about the others, simply because I don't recall offhand where we left Category organization, and I know it'll take me some time to ponder these points. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I intend to implement 1-4 within a week, if there are no objections. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No objections on my part. It seems to be a good idea. ~ Kalki 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Re (1): Wikiquote may implicitly imply "notable", but "famous last words" does not connote the same thing as "notable last words". I haven't looked at that page; in which group does it fall? 121a0012 04:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That was the point of "famous is a bad word": I did not say it means the same thing -- I meant to say it shouldn't mean what it means right now, because we fame is a POV concept (as opposed to notability, which is NPOV if vague). Just like we do not have a category famous people because everyone should be notable, and we do not categorize based on fame :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you missed my point. "Famous last words" has a distinct meaning; it does not mean the same thing as "last words which happen to be famous" or "last words of famous people". I took a look at the article, and it seems to be rather a mish-mosh of Famous Last Words, Last Words of the Famous, and Last Words of People Alleged to be Notable Who I've Never Heard Of. 121a0012 01:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

But all are "Notable last words". Every "Famous last word" :) is "Notable", but not vice-versa. And I doubt you could find a meaning for "Famous last words" which is NPOV... ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1-4 are done now. I am going to take 5-7 to a more appropriate venue. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussions in the rest of the suggestions is moved to Wikiquote talk:Category schemes#Reorganizing top-level. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mixing fundamental categories, or not

I notice a few subcategories cross the lines between Fundamental categories, e.g.:

• People included in Themes
  • Category:Historians under Category:History
  • Category:Australians under Category: Australia
• Productions included in Themes
  • Category:Comedy films under Category:Comedy
  • Category:Buddhist texts under Category:Buddhism

...just to name a few. This has led to some odd situations, such as:

• Britons are in the United Kingdom but Americans are not in the United States
• Category:War includes War criminals but not Military leaders

I think the distinction between fundamental categories is very useful, and continuing to mix them up will render them useless. I have done it myself, and now consider it a mistake. Instead, we can use "see also" in a theme category to indicate related categories of people or productions (works). Before I attempt to "clean up" the situation, does anyone else have opinions on this? ~ Ningauble 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Returning to this a few weeks later, I still think it would be a good idea to clean this up. There are a dozen or two crossovers. I will go ahead and sort them out. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)