Wikiquote talk:Category schemes/Archives/2005
Vote for deletion noticeEdit
This article was preserved after a vote for its deletion. See its archived VfD entry for details.
Currently our Category scheme has three top levels: Wikiquote for maintenance material, Main page which collects those categories with links on the Main page and Fundamental which collects other "high level" categories. I would suggest that we reorganize this to one top-level category: Fundamental. Then Wikiquote would be a subcategory as well as Main page. I note that Wikipedia treats Fundamental as the single top level category and that category:Wikipedia is a subcategory of it.
I also sugggest that each category in Main page by added to Category:Fundamental. This would collect all "high level" categories in one place.
A third question I have concerns category Occupations. Currently all occupation are top level subcategories of Category:Occupations so we have Occupations with subcategories Authors, Screenwriters, Poets, Journalists, and Critics. Category:Authors is already become very large for obvious reasons. I wonder whether it would be better to make the other categories subcategories of Category:Authors and perhaps add a couple more for novelists, playwrights, etc.
I would also suggest that Category:Unknown be renamed category:Unknown occupation as that is its current purpose but that is not clear from the title. This should probably be cross-listed in the maintenaince categories somewhere. Rmhermen 14:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Also I notice we have duplicates: Businesspeople and Business leaders. I would suggest using only Business leaders to match Religious leaders and Political leaders. I would like to see Military commanders redirected to the more general and matching Military leaders as well.
- Also Computer Scientists should be renamed Computer scientists to match other category's capitalization. On Wikipedia these request would be put on the Categories for deletion page but I don't think we need anything elaborate here. Rmhermen 14:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Also Category:Politicians may or may not be a duplicate of Category:Political leaders. Do we want two categories - one for actually leaders like presidents, prime ministers and one for lower level politicians? How would we indicate this? Rmhermen 14:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Fundamental" and "Main page"Edit
The current scheme makes these two categories are distinct (along with a third, "Wikiquote"). Rmhermen suggests above that "Main page" be a subcategory of "Fundamental", in order to make Fundamental the overarching category. I don't agree, because we already have an overarching category — Category:Categories. Fundamental, to me, is more oriented toward top-level collections of knowledge, and "Main page" isn't a body of knowledge, but a practical view of Wikiquote's primary collections of quotes. It's rather like the content vs. presentation debate in programming. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rmhermen also suggests that all of Main page's subcategories also be included in Fundamental. I think that some, like perhaps Occupations, should be in Fundamental. I also think People should be a Category (capital C) under "Fundamental" and "Main page", as it's the only old category (lowercase c) listed in Selected Pages, besides the confusing "Categories" category, that isn't a Category. (Jeez, we need different words!) Literary works, Films, TV shows, and Electronic games all strike me as fundamentally "Entertainment" or "Works" (to contrast with "People" and "Themes"), which is how I'd group them under Fundamental. But these entertainment Categories still make sense in the Main page bar (and therefore in Category:Main page), again because they are how we've organized our view of Wikiquote. I see no compelling reason either to include in or exclude from Fundamental everything in Main page. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Wikiquote and Wikipedia appear to be different, in that WP doesn't seem to have a "Main page" category. It just slaps links to its greatest-interest Categories, which may or may not be in Fundamental, on the its Main page bar. WP and WQ both use their names as categories to group administrative topics, separating those pages from the article namespace. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rmhermen wonders if we shouldn't subcategorize some occupations, like Authors, that are growing fairly large. I have no problem with appropriate subcategories. But I don't see any real problem with having large categories, either. Another concern with subcategorization is when someone belongs to more than one subcategory; e.g., Shakespeare (poet, playwright), Douglas Adams (science fiction author, comedic author). Of course, that's not really a problem, either. The main concern I've seen about multiple categories in Wikidom so far is that you never want to have an article in both category A and category A's subcategory or supercategory, which is considered wasteful. (E.g., if Shakespeare is in Poets and Playwrights, which are subcategories of Authors, he shouldn't also be in Authors.) — Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I think I missed a significant annoyance of large categories — having to check multiple pages for a long list like Authors. Since we're up to 318 authors, and growing daily, I'm definitely leaning toward subcategorization now. One concern is how to do it. Using Authors as an example, it might make sense to have genre categories under Authors by genre under Authors, similar to the Literature by genre under Literary works. A subcategorization by format (novelists, playwrights, essayists, etc.) would also make sense. (I'm not sure what to call this; "format" seems kind of vague to me.) Both systems can be used, just as Literary works has both "by genre" and "by author". I'm going to start changing some author category tags, and I invite people to look at the results and comment. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rmhermen that (A) "Businesspeople" should be merged with "Business leaders" and (B) "Military commanders" should be moved to "Military leaders" to maintain the established pattern. I would suggest that "Politicians" and "Political leaders" are essentially the same, as politicians are leaders (of polities) by definition (whether they actually lead or not), and it would be hard to draw a line between tiers of politicians. (E.g., if we draw it at the top political office, what about countries like China that don't have a formal top? Do we just pick the effective leader, whatever the office? What about military leaders that are de facto heads of state, without a political title?) — Jeff Q (talk) 10:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I also second the suggestion about Category:Politicians and Category:Political leaders. Let's deprecate the latter and move its contents to former. Then maybe subcategorize Category:Politicians since it has grown quite big. We could have "Politicians by country" -> "American politicians", "Politicians by office" -> "Prime ministers" etc. jni 10:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I second jni's motion. I believe that, while political leaders are by their nature politicians, politicians are not always political leaders. Just like a circle is a shape, but a shape is not a circle. Therefore, we should subcategorize political leaders into politicians. This will not only be helpful, but extremely simple to manage. -- Benn M 01:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need to rename "Unknown" into "Unknown occupations". I think this kind of "Unknown" is unnecessary. It assumes that we must categorize everyone by occupation. But there are other aspects that may be considered important. We already have nationalities (e.g., Germans, Indians) and sex (e.g., Men, although I expect we'll add Women, too). Any such category will have an implied "Unknown" until someone fills it in. Technically, there could also be an "Uncategorized", for those whose subcategory of an aspect doesn't yet exist (e.g., Italians, Hermaphrodites). I suggest this drive to complete categorization is not essential. Anyone who doesn't appear in an Occupation or a Nationality will just wait until someone identifies it. (We can also avoid potential political correctness fights over occupations with controversial titles simply by not bothering to include them unless and until people feel compelled to add them. ☺) Basically, we don't really need to flesh out any category branch, just provide some patterns to follow. We should remember a basic Wiki principle: nothing's ever finished. If we can establish solid patterns, we're doing extremely well indeed. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I will note that I didn't create Category:Unknown but I can see it serving a purpose as a Maintenance category showing us where work needs to be done. Rmhermen 16:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- But don't Special:Uncategorized pages and Special:Uncategorized categories do this job much more effectively? Anything that needs a category is apparently automatically listed here, not just people articles that someone has taken the trouble to tag as "Unknown". (Don't let my bold statements above fool you — I'm still feeling my way through the Category system. I could easily be missing something.) — Jeff Q (talk) 19:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I support Rmhermen's suggestion to rename categories to match typical Wiki capitalization (i.e., first word capitalized, no others capitalized except proper nouns and all-cap acronyms). The vast majority of categories thus far conform to this pattern, so there are only a few to fix anyway. Once we have a categorization help page, we can make this clear. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Besides "Computer Scientists", the only other one I noticed was "Category:Nobel Prize Winners" Rmhermen 16:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For once, I have an issue that the very thoughtful Rmhermen hasn't yet raised! ☺ We have reason to create a Nationalities category. Right now, we have exactly three: "Germans", "Indians", and "People from Canada" (which I was planning to move to "Canadians"). This sounded like an excellent pattern — until I thought about the British. (English? Britishers?) The Welsh. (Welshmen? Welshpeople?) The Irish. (Of the those island folk, only the Scots cooperate with our plural pattern.) And there are many more besides these. Can we establish a reasonable pattern here? (That "People from" is beginning to look reasonable.) I seem to recall a page on Wikipedia that listed the various forms of national descriptive names (e.g., country adjectival, people, language, etc.). If no one knows that page offhand, I'll see if I can track it down. But I'm looking for suggestions about this particular pattern. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is, I believe moving all categories to the "X of country" format. I support a Category:Nationalities. What supercategory does it go in -- People?, Fundamental? Rmhermen 15:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(The following separate thread along the same vein has been moved from WQ:VP#Categorization by Nationality/Geography)
As Wikiquote, like all the Wikimedia projects, are meant to be sources of information, references for those who are stumped by their own knowledge, I began categorizing entries by their nationality and geography. I have since been asked to stop and run this by the village pump. I shall here make my case for beginning to sort person-entries by geography. I have, in the past, looked around for quotes not necessarily based on topic or source, or even time period, but by geography. Very few sources sort themselves out this way. I thought with the beautiful thing called wiki we could do it relatively painlessly and simply. What has thus far been built is a multi-branched tree. On the entry's page goes the country of origin (in the case of some large territories or nations, regions/provinces/states are wise, to narrow things down). Then, the country of origin leads to the continent, which leads to a category People by nationality. Which comes down directly from People. It's a short tree. And one entry is not necessarily limited to one place. For example, Ambrose Bierce is often identified with Illinois and Ohio as he is with California. T. S. Eliot was an Englishman who later emigrated to America. This information can be recorded by sorting these people by their places of origin as well as their later residences. -- Benn M 09:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your proposal, I hope other editors consider your ideas about. To make clear, though personally I am doubious if "categories by nationality" is really useful and can be appropriate our POV policy, but I appreciate both all good improvement and attempt for increasing usability. The reasons I am not for "categories by nationality" are the below:
- "Nationality" is a modern notion and can hardly apply to ealier than medieval people, sometimes premodern. Example: Antherm of Canterbery was born in Italian but his main activitie was in English - and he wrote nor in Italian nor in English but in Latin. How should we categorize such person?
- There are many disputes on attribution (remember Gdansk vote!) in some areas - nationality is not a geographical concept, but politic. And it is hard to be neutralized. A Japan-born person with US nationalities is considered Amercian by US citizens but Japanese tend to think he is still Japanese "because he is born in Japan and Japnese in ethnics". For NPOV categorization, we are better to avoid confusion between nationalities, ethnics and geographical notions (where he or she was born). [This problem I have felt already in our brief description on each article].
- Relevant proposal: how about categories by language of source? If someone is written in French, his quotes will be categorized into "French language".
- By the way, T.S.Eliot was born in America, studied in Harverd and later emigranted to the UK, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 10:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- First, you are right about Eliot's birthplace/adopted homeland. Forgive my error, and please put it down to my dyslexia, not any lack of competence on my part. But that isn't really here nor there. The point remains; he has two geographies. Which leads to the following.
- I wish to assert that my idea (and subsequent effort) was not at all concerned with ethnicity. In fact, I probably have myself to blame for that misunderstanding by using the word "nationality." By this, I mean something more along the lines of citizenship. Example, T. S. Eliot is under both Category:Missourians and Category:Englishmen. You could say this is because he was born in Missouri, and settled in England.
- I do not understand how mother tongue comes into this debate. It was not the intent of this category tree to infer language, but location. Nor was its goal to divvy up entries by ethnicities. That is utterly pointless, unless he or she is relevant in such a way, e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Finally, I do not see how geography is a danger to NPOV. If you are born, or worked mostly in, Sweden, what is so subjective about, in a reference source as this, relating you to Sweden? Once more, I must insist this is not about background or ideologies or ethnicity. It was simply an effort to organize the entries in a harmlessly useful manner. -- Benn M 10:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In principle, your efforts should be very much appreciated I think, but I also think that planning in advance by discussing it here would be a good idea, so we wouldn't create a mess in the categories. First thing that comes to mind is that you seem to be ahead of the wikipedia categories, i.e. adding New Yorkers and Ohioans etc. etc. - I would assume that being in sync with the wikipedia categories is a desirable goal for us? Or maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps you should start by creating wikipedia categories, where more people would review what you do? As for the specific categories that you have in mind, the word Americans is ambiguous, and therefore can create results that might be considered weird, like, you created 'Americans' as a subcategory of 'North Americans', instead of the other way around... If you want a complete tree, it could lead to stuff like 'Central Americans'/'South Americans' => 'Latin Americans' => 'Americans'. BTW, Aphaia, what is our "POV policy"? You're right that Gdansk and similar huge disputes being put into a certain category would be POV, but other than categories, what else might be considered POV here? Also, if we choose to follow wikipedia's lead on categories, it'd be their mess, not ours:) Sams 10:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Very apt. I have already thought of the problem of the ambiguity of the word American. Beginning at Category:People you can follow the entire tree down to the bottom, for every case. In addition, I have long felt that Wikipedia's sister projects are in fact siblings with equal suffrage, not subservient to the almighty "Pedia Precedent". I did not create the "People by nationality" category; if I had, I would have chosen different wording. "People by principle geography" would be my initial choice. I agree that I was probably overzealous in starting this thing immediately upon conception, and am now putting a moratorium on my efforts in that realm pending discussion here. -- Benn M 10:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm basically in favor of multiple categorizations, and can see the utility of having "people by geography" or whatever. But I have to agree with Aphaia that it's a Pandora's box of problems. Taking the cited example of Sweden, which Sweden would that be? Would it include Götaland (which was part of ancient Denmark)? Finland (part of Sweden for centuries)? Norway (politically subject to Sweden for much of the 19th century)? (Check out the table at Structure of the Swedish Realm on Wikipedia to see how messy defining "Sweden" can be.) Late 20th-century people that we are, we tend to think of most national boundaries as relatively static and uncontroversial, but a quick review of the CIA World Factbook (and for that matter, any day's news headlines) shows just how limited a view that is. (If you can draw an geographical line between Israel and Palestine that sticks, you're sure to win the Nobel Peace Prize.) I think that resistance to this form of categorization might have more to do with avoiding hassles than rejecting a potentially useful idea. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I understand and recognize this qualm, but in my mind it has a couple relatively simple solutions.
- Place a caveat on the Category:People by nationality page (I really want that name to be changed) that states that the sorting is by contemporary boundaries, even if it refers to historical figures. PRO: This would eliminate such potentially bothersome sub-sub-subcategories based on history and time period. CON: If someone is looking for quotes by Byzantines, they would have to know to check Turkey, Greece & the Balkans, and Palestine. Messy in of itself.
- Place people under the historically concurrent names of their geography's region. PRO: This means that we aren't ignoring the vast difference between Asia Minor today (mostly Muslim, Turkic) and one thousand years ago (mostly Christian, Greek). CON: Once more, someone would have to know what the hell "Byzantine" refers before it could be of any use to them.
- All these things aside, let me suggest that we not be perfectionist about the thing. Yes, it needs to be competent, understandable and useable, but it does not have to be perfect. If a flub opens up, it can be fixed with very little stress and only a little more time. I would therefore advocate continuing on under a probationary period, after which if it continues to prove unwieldy and its benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, the experiment be terminated. -- Benn M 08:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I understand and recognize this qualm, but in my mind it has a couple relatively simple solutions.
- I consider it a useful way of categorizing people. I created the People by nationality category to collect Benn M's work and don't mind it being changed but note that it does involve more work than moving a page and so should be well-considered and agreed upon before doing the work of changing categories. Rmhermen 04:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer to keep current "only by occupation" system, but don't oppose someone develops to another type schemes. But categories by nationality could be a pot of gunpowder actually. I heard recently edit wars are happening on Polish Wikipedia, if a certain person is categorized into Polish or German (born in Poland nowadays but spoke and wrote in German, like that). If a rough sketcy of category scheme is available before putting categories, it would be nice. --Aphaia 08:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I categorized Aida under Category:Opera and found we hadn't it. On Wikipedia Opera is subcategories of both Theatrical genre and Musical genre. We have already Plays. I hesitate to categorize Opera under Plays somehow. Is there any good solution? For my eyes Wikipedia scheme is a too complicated to serve our project (there are many subcategories we would never need). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
- Tongue in cheek: Categorize under "Things appearing in Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which would be a subcategory of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", subcategory of "Television shows" :)
- Less tongue in cheek: Operas are plays -- just ones in which the actors sing their part rather than speaking it. I vote for a Category:Operas under Category:Plays ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
- Partly so, but partly disagreed. Many Opera fan think it as a sort of musical genre - another group think it as a theatrical genre. For the former it should be paralell with "Lyrics" (if we have). We have to stand in NPOV and it is not acceptable to stand in only one side. And besids NPOV it would be inconvinient for musical fans. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, I don't understand what you're objecting to. To me it's obvious that it should be under Plays, and I fail to see how the NPOV argument argues against that. You seem to be arguing that it should also belong to a different, non-existing, category which nothing else belongs to. I don't object to adding Opera to another category, and certainly I didn't object to a Music category (under which Musicians, Bands and Opera would be grouped). What I pointed out is that having Category:Operas have Category:Plays seems natural. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
Categories needing some workEdit
(Moved from WQ:VP)
- I'm not sure what to do re: Category:Boyd Rice and Friends albums.
- I'm not sure what should be the parent category of Category:Anime.
I think all other categories should be ok now...I've given them a once over in an attempt to organize them somewhat, it's quite possible that more reorg should be done. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
- Should I move the discussion to Wikiquote talk:Category schemes? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)
- I am not sure but Category schemes sounds good. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
Currently we have close to 1,000 articles without categories. Most of them are not just categorized yet, but some seem to have no suitable category. Like Abigail Adams. So first we need to fill such blanks. Next we need to reorganize category trees. Some categorie need to be created new, some to be merged and deleted sometimes. And I am not sure it could be a solution "okay we can just import the English Wikipedia category schemes" way, because it is too huge for our project and contain many possibly unused categories here. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
The terrorist category might be a Pandora box. The fact that bin Laden is a terrorist is not contested, but if you leave this category in place then sooner or later someone will try to add western leaders into it, claiming they fit the w:Definition of terrorism much better than bin Laden etc., i.e. w:state terrorism. Though it might be possible to either rename or make it clear that this cat only refers to retail terrorism. wikipedia:Category:Terrorism is quite evolved, but bin Laden etc. aren't listed as terrorists because of this reason. There're of course tons of debates on talk pages, one example from Jimmy Wales. I think that if we break it down in a more detailed way then we may avoid the possible problems, i.e. have bin Laden etc. in a 'Al-Qaeda members' cat, and if there would be a wikiquote Al-Qaeda article then its cat would be 'terrorist organizations', etc. Or we could just do nothing and see what'd come up:) Sams 09:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a good idea for us to have "Terrorists" category; therefore I don't support to include Osama bin Ladin into this category. As same as "tyrants" or "dictators" it would be not only a Pandora box but also a strongly NPOV-challanged category. I would like to propose categorize his "Political leaders", "Islamic political leaders" and so on. It happens quite often that a hero for someone is a traitor or a terrorist for others. And a dispute like "who is a terrorist or not" must be unproductive. --Aphaia 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is non-NPOV. There is a clear definition, and Bin Laden falls into it -- by his own admission, he has sponsored violence against civilians, and he's not a leader of a country which is at war...What's non-NPOV about it? All the above has clear evidence. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Ronald Reagan labelled the Afghan Mujahideen, which included bin Laden, as "freedom fighters". The definition isn't too clear, e.g. "violence against civilians" as you put it might not apply to the bombing of the Pentagon on 9/11, so that wasn't an act of terror? Again, the fact that bin Laden is a terrorist is not really contested by anyone, certainly not by me. The problem is that too many people might fit into this cat, so if you leave it as it is, someone who visits the bin Laden article and sees it might go to the George W. Bush article and add him into this cat, etc. etc. - therefore perhaps we should think of ways to avoid such debates by having different cats. Sams 11:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- There is no clear definition. Wikipedia's Definition of terrorism explicitly says "there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism", and after listing several criteria including "the target is civilian/noncombatant" and "the perpetrator is non-governmental", it concludes that "none of these is universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficent". If we can't even agree on what constitutes an adequate definition, and Wikipedia says their isn't one, we have no means to limit the people added to this category. We need more than just an extreme example. Agreeing that bin Laden is a terrorist (which I feel certain is not universal, however well-deserved IMHO) is like agreeing that Bill Gates belongs in a "rich people" category — it doesn't help us define who else should or shouldn't be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do feel strongly about needing categories. I propose that whoever thinks Category:Terrorists is a bad idea should at the very least find alternative categorizations for Ulrike and Osama (activists? violent activists?) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- And what is meant by "violent"? "Violent activists" could arguably include Clayton Lee Waagner, the guy sentenced for mailing anthrax to abortion clinics; Greenpeace members who practice "eco-terrorism" when they disrupt businesses by forcing them to ram stationary boats in order to do their work; or even any Pro-Choice activist, since they fight for the right to commit "murder". You see where I'm going, I hope. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I've already been somewhat bold and recategorized the 10 web comics we have in a seperate subcategory of Category:Comics -- Category:Web comics. Other than that, I have plans which are possibly more controversial, so I wanted to air them out. I want to create a "Marvel comics" (containing Astonishing X-Men, X-Men (comics) and Ultimate Spider-Man) and "DC comics" (containing Gotham Central, Justice League and Watchmen). This seems to me like a good idea, since these two categories are each 0.25 of the overall category, and between web comics and them, they leave few things in the base category. If people think it is too soon, I am willing to wait until I contribute a couple more Marvel comics articles from stuff I have lying around the house. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. DC and Marvel, the Big 2 in the U.S., are obvious subcategorizatons, and web comics deserve their own cat if for no other reason than to make it easy to examine this growing genre that has generated some controversy on WQ. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A modest proposalEdit
- Redirect List of categories to Wikiquote:Category schemes
- Recategorize Category:People under Category:Main page
- 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").