This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karinpower (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 30 May 2014 (→How to deal with conflicting sources on how to categorize a topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:19, 30 May 2014 by Karinpower (talk | contribs) (→How to deal with conflicting sources on how to categorize a topic)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut | Categories | |||
| ||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
RFC: Categorisation of Anglican priests
There is a clear consensus to categorize Anglican priests by both nationality and denomination. Armbrust 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{rfc|reli|rfcid=AE5B517}}
Should Anglican priests be categorised by:
- their own nationality (e.g. Category:English Anglican priests)
- the Anglican denomination(s) in which they served (e.g. Category:Church of England priests)
- both by nationality and by denomination (e.g. Category:English Anglican priests and Category:Church of England priests)
There is broad agreement that the current category doesn't work, but no agreement on the solution.
As it stands, this category is labelled as a category-by-nationality, but as a sub-category of Category:Church of England clergy it is also used a by-denomination set (grouping priests of the Church of England). Removing this category from Category:Church of England clergy would remove most CoE priests from the COE categories; but renaming it per the nominator's proposal would mean that those English people who are priests in another Anglican denomination would me miscategorised. The parent Category:Anglican priests by nationality is an assortment of categories by nationality and categories by denomination, and it seems that only in the case of Scotland do we have both: a denominational Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests and a nationality Category:Scottish Anglican priests.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have notified WikiProject Anglicanism , and all 8 participants in the CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closure requested. Discussion appears to have stalled, so I have posted a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Looking at the actual contents it seems that we do not have enough people to justify the by nationality schema. For example Category:German Anglican priests consists of one person who was a priest in Australia. I think we should for now go with a by National Church structure, but have the caveat that in cases like The Episcopal Church we will retroactively apply it to all priests who were within the 13 colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Surely if that one German (Andreas Loewe) was a German and an Anglican priest, he should be categorised as a German priest? If he was a German footballer who spent most of career in Australia, he would still be in Category:German footballers, as well a categ for his Australian team.
And if so, why not as a German Anglican priest?
The concentration of Anglicanism in the former British Empire does mean that many of the by-nationality will be thinly populated. However, the same applies to other occupations which are concentrated in particular parts of the globe, with a thin spread elsewhere. One example is Category:Cricketers by nationality (a similarly-distributed English export), where we some very heavily populated categs, and other very sparse ones. What be the problem with categorising Anglican priests in the same way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Surely if that one German (Andreas Loewe) was a German and an Anglican priest, he should be categorised as a German priest? If he was a German footballer who spent most of career in Australia, he would still be in Category:German footballers, as well a categ for his Australian team.
- Category:People by occupation and nationality (and hence its subcats) should be categorizing by the person's nationality. See Category:Puerto Rican military personnel for an example that is clearly categorizing by nationality of the person rather than by the nationality of their employer. This probably should be made clearer at Category:People by occupation and nationality. All/most bio articles should fit somewhere in that category tree (e.g. in Category:English priests).
- Category:Church of Ireland priests should not be under Category:Anglican priests by nationality as the "Ireland" refers to the organisation, not to the nationality of the priests; it should instead be under Category:People by organization. We should have a category for "Irish Anglican priests" (under Category:Anglican priests by nationality) with a "see also" link to the CofI category. The same applies to Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests (priests in the Scottish Episcopal Church, not Scottish people who are Episcopalian priests!) and possibly others. DexDor (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- This would seem to lead to category clutter. Do we really want to put every Anglican priest in 2 categories for the one fact of being a priest. That seems to be the very definition of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is routine in many other occupations. For example, Hadley Freeman and Tim Dowling are both in Category:American journalists and Category:The Guardian journalists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding category clutter (@JPL), who a person (notably) worked for is a much more appropriate characteristic for categorization than many other categories we currently have (place of burial, grandparent's ethnicities etc). DexDor (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is routine in many other occupations. For example, Hadley Freeman and Tim Dowling are both in Category:American journalists and Category:The Guardian journalists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- This would seem to lead to category clutter. Do we really want to put every Anglican priest in 2 categories for the one fact of being a priest. That seems to be the very definition of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Overlapping. So far, the best solution seems to be to categorise both by nationality and by denomination. That is the only way to avoid either omitting a defining attribute, other than by having a single category for both attributes ... which would be inaccurate for people of one nationality who served in the Anglican denomination of another country.
My one concern is that there is likely to be significant overlap between the by-nationality and by-denomination categories. For example, I presume that the majority of Church of England priests are English people (although there is probably a significant minority of Scots, Irish, Welsh and Commonwealth people). Similarly, it is likely that a large of majority English Anglican priests served in the CoE rather than in other Anglican churches (though in the days of the British Empire, many went as missionaries to the colonies).
The situation is complicated by the fact that many of the Anglican denominations outside the UK were established long after the development of an Anglican presence there. For example, until 1927 the substantial Anglican presence in India was organised as a province of the CoE, and the current Diocese of Europe includes all of continental Europe and the former USSR as part of the CoE.
Despite all the tangles, I can't see any viable alternative to categorising separately by both attributes ... and some of the difficulties about the CoE's geograhical scope may e alleviated by creating a few subcats of Category:Church of England priests, such as Category:Church of England priests in India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- By denomination for all and by nationality where sufficient numbers merit it. I've used 3 denominations and 3 types of clergy below to illustrate a comprehensive tree structure.
Category:Church of England clergy - parent of
- Category:Church of England priests
- Category:Church of England deans
- Category:Church of England bishops
Category:Church of Ireland clergy - parent of
- Category:Church of Ireland priests
- Category:Church of Ireland deans
- Category:Church of Ireland bishops
Category:Scottish Episcopalian clergy - parent of
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian deans
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian bishops
Category:Anglican priests - parent of
- Category:Church of Ireland priests
- Category:Church of England priests
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian priests
Category:Anglican deans - parent of
- Category:Church of Ireland deans
- Category:Church of England deans
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian deans
Category:Anglican bishops - parent of
- Category:Church of Ireland bishops
- Category:Church of England bishops
- Category:Scottish Episcopalian bishops Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged: both Deans and Bishops are types of priests. They should therefore be sub-categories of priests, rather than of the parent clergy categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Not really - they're types of clergy. Unless you consider a general and a colonel to by types of soldier. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged: Generals and colonels are both types of military officer, which in turn a type of soldier. Similarly, bishops and deans are a types of priest, and priests are in turn a type of clergy. The principle of Misplaced Pages categories that pages should be in be the most specific parent category, which in the case of bishops and deans is priests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- The scope definition of Category:Christian clergy by type is "Christian clergy categorized primarily by title, type or ordained status (e.g., Priest, Bishop, Deacon, Elder, etc.), not primarily by occupation (e.g., Pastor, Preacher, Chaplain, etc.), although the two sometimes coincide.". Clergy is the most specific, not priest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Laurel Lodged: Leave aside for a moment what the banned editor Pastorwayne wrote 7 years ago in Category:Christian clergy by type. Are you seriously arguing that an Anglican bishop is not a type of priest? If so, can you give an example of an Anglican bishop who had not been ordained as a priest? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Pardon if I decline to enter your fantasy world of what you would like me to have said. Keeping this brief:
- Category:Bishops is a child of the following categories: Category:Ecclesiastical titles, Category:People by occupation and Category:Christian clergy by type
- Category:Deans (Christianity) is a child of Category:Christian clergy by type. If see no reason why it could not also be a member of Category:Ecclesiastical titles and Category:People by occupation.
- Category:Christian priests is a child of Category:Priests (which includes pagan priests) and of Category:Christian religious leaders and Category:Christian clergy by type. If see no reason why it could not also be a member of Category:Ecclesiastical titles and Category:People by occupation.
- It will be noted that neither Bishops nor Deans is a child of Priests. Are you proposing to alter this arrangement? If so, that's a whole other discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not so much civility there :(
- And the categ hierarchy you set out repeatedly breaches WP:SUBCAT: "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". Some tidyup needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Survey
Categorise by their own nationality
Categorise by the Anglican denomination(s) in which they served
- This seems the best with our current contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Categorise both by nationality and by denomination
- Category:Anglican priests by nationality should have a subcat for Anglican priests of Irish nationality. Category:Church of Ireland priests can remain, but should not be under a people-by-nationality category. See my more detailed explanation in the Discussion section. DexDor (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- For me, the third option is the best. The scheme of categories chosen needs to take account of all centuries back to the 16th. Of course, until the 19th century (and even later) the C. of E. had dioceses in most parts of the British Empire. It is odd that we have a Category:Church of Ireland priests but not a Category:Church of England priests. Despite what someone said in the last discussion, a huge number of Church of Ireland priests were English and Welsh, and even now some are. I suppose all those in Category:16th-century Anglican priests are English, but I see no harm in that form being used for the century-by-century categories. From 1801 to 1869 the established church in England and Ireland was the "United Church of England and Ireland", and the Church of England (or else the United Church of England and Ireland) was the established church in Wales until disestablishment took effect there in 1920. So we need to avoid any narrowness of approach which works for one century but not another. Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The third option makes the most sense, with the caveat that there may not be enough content to justify creation of some of the potential categories.
- Denominational categorization is important. Not all Anglicans are Church of England; groups like American Episcopals are actually Anglican without using that term; and offshoots like Continuing Anglicanism are Anglican without being part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Accordingly, I suggest that Church of England priests, Church of Ireland priests, American Episcopal priests, etc., should be included in a parent category for "Priests of the Anglican Communion" (or similar wording) and a similar umbrella category should be created for Continuing Anglicanism. Both of these belong in a higher category for "Anglican priests" (or "Anglican clergy").
- If categorization by nationality is desired (and it appears to me that there is a perceived need for categorizing by nationality), there needs to be a clear distinction from the denominational categorization. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- By denomination for all and by nationality where numbers merit it. If the result would be too many small categories by nationality, then don't create them. Only create them where it makes sense to do so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- So far as I can see from the discussion so far, this is the only workable route. Denominational categorisation is important, and so is categorisation by nationality. Combining the two doesn't work for a significant minority of biographies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both methods of categorization provide useful information about the subject, and it appears there are many exceptions concerning nationality and regional denominations (e.g. not all Church of Ireland priests are Irish). Floatsam (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Defaultsort set to town first for pubs
Whilst happening upon Category:Grade II listed public houses, I noticed that the defaultsort was set to town first for a lot of the entries, resulting in poor alphabetisation in this (and other) categories. Is this correct? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to be one editor's preference: not justified by any policy that I know of, and doesn't seem very useful. I found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Beer/Pub_Taskforce but there is no indication of any such policy or guideline. PamD 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)This seems to be a UK thing. I have been dealing with it on church articles. In my opinion, and others, the default sort should by name with abbreviations expanded and punctuation removed if the DEFAULTSORT is used. If the local community wants a different sort in specific categories they should pipe those. The DEFAULTSORT should not be used for that purpose since it messes up the general categories. Not sure where or how this is coming about, but like you, many readers find this confusing. A similar case is the tool for NRHP buildings that sorts like the article is about a person if the building is named after a person. The default should make sense to most readers and not produce apparently random results. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's the way I would want to go about it. I'll undo what I can, and I've left a note on the editor in question's talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm - what do we think of pub names that start with "Ye"? Sorted by "Ye", or should we treat it as "The"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd treat "Ye" as "The". PamD 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just found an authority: WP:SORTKEY, talking about "The" etc, says Please also apply these sort keys to deliberate misspellings of these words—e.g. "da" or "tha" for "the", as well as foreign language articles, such as "el" or "der" ..., and though I'm not quite sure whether either of those applies exactly to an archaism, "Ye" is certainly in the spirit of that guideline as something to be treated like "The". PamD 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'd say "deliberate misspellings" is applicable here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just found an authority: WP:SORTKEY, talking about "The" etc, says Please also apply these sort keys to deliberate misspellings of these words—e.g. "da" or "tha" for "the", as well as foreign language articles, such as "el" or "der" ..., and though I'm not quite sure whether either of those applies exactly to an archaism, "Ye" is certainly in the spirit of that guideline as something to be treated like "The". PamD 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd treat "Ye" as "The". PamD 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:Check category and category pages
The template {{Check category}} doesn't put the page into any maintenance cats if used on a category page; this is because it uses {{ambox}}. Please comment at Template talk:Check category#Category pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC about whether one-entry categories should exist
It's here: Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization#RfC: Forever Alone?. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Opinions needed re: subcats
I made a number of edits to remove redundant categorization of items that were in both Category:Violence against women and Category:Rape per WP:SUBCAT. @Drowninginlimbo: has stalked my edits and reverted almost all of them. see
- Drowninginlimbo claims that Category:Rape is a non-diffusing category, which to me doesn't make any sense at all - first of all, it is not labelled as such, and secondly, if it is really non-diffusing, then ALL of the contents should be put in ALL parents (that's what non-diffusing means) - but this isn't the case nor how the category has been used to date. I think having Category:Rape as a diffusing subcategory of various violence cats makes more sense, and I don't think there is a need to bubble all of the contents of Category:Rape up to the various parents - we could simply keep the head article Category:Rape in Category:Violence against men and Category:Violence against women and then keep all other articles that deal with rape, rape cases, rape law, rape analysis etc in Category:Rape (and relevant subcats) and not dual=categorize them all in Category:Violence against women and Category:Violence against men. Please share your opinions below so we can come to consensus here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think removing them from Category:Violence against women distracts from the fact that many of these articles are issues that mostly affect women. This particular categorisation is also not NPOV for you as you edit from a anti-Feminist POV. It also helps hugely with navigation to have them included in both categories. I'd also prefer it if you didn't refer to my reverting your edits as 'stalking', this isn't your personal encyclopedia and your edits aren't above reproach --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Categorization is based on policies, not on your personal feelings. No-one will dispute that Rape isn't relevant for violence against women - that is why it is a subcategory thereof. The real question is, of the 1381 pages in the Category:Rape category, why do you believe that 6 or 7 should be in the parent? it's inconsistent, and violates WP:SUBCAT. Do you have a policy-based reason for your edits? I can't find any. also please don't claim that I edit from an anti-feminist POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was reverting the edits you had made as I didn't feel there was consensus for it, I will go through and edit the ones you didn't revert at a later date. Okay then, I won't claim it, although you have made similar claims against me based on the same actions you have made --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Categorization is based on policies, not on your personal feelings. No-one will dispute that Rape isn't relevant for violence against women - that is why it is a subcategory thereof. The real question is, of the 1381 pages in the Category:Rape category, why do you believe that 6 or 7 should be in the parent? it's inconsistent, and violates WP:SUBCAT. Do you have a policy-based reason for your edits? I can't find any. also please don't claim that I edit from an anti-feminist POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think removing them from Category:Violence against women distracts from the fact that many of these articles are issues that mostly affect women. This particular categorisation is also not NPOV for you as you edit from a anti-Feminist POV. It also helps hugely with navigation to have them included in both categories. I'd also prefer it if you didn't refer to my reverting your edits as 'stalking', this isn't your personal encyclopedia and your edits aren't above reproach --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note that currently Category:Rape has 12 subcategories and 46 articles, and ~1300 articles below that. Drowning has given no explanation why around 2 sub-categories and ~6 articles should be placed in the parent of Category:Violence against women, but none of the others. If rape is relevant to violence against women (which no-one will disagree with), why not put everything in Category:Rape in Category:Violence against women as well? It doesn't make any sense. Rape is a sufficiently detailed topic that it merits its own category tree, and that whole tree is in Category:Violence against women. The "it helps hugely with navigation" argument could be used for any article about rape, and we have hundreds - so either we move ALL of them up to the parent since it helps navigation, or we keep them categorized in subcats per WP:SUBCAT.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't that ignore the fact that rape often IS about violence against a specific gender, not humans as a whole? Your proposed categorisation is ignorant of the very reality of rape. Why can't you include articles in both? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have WP:SUBCAT for a reason - since categories are supposed to help with navigatin. There are simply too many rape articles to bubble all those relating to women up to the parent. All rape articles are relevant to Category:Gender-based violence, Category:Sexual_and_gender_prejudices and Category:Sexuality and society, but we don't place all rape articles in those categories as well. This is simply how categories work here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- But removing Category:Violence against women means that the categorisation does not reflect that rape is often a gendered issue. I would argue that some articles have both categories, whilst others have just Category:Rape, as that category does not adequately reflect much of what Category:Violence against women entails --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The current reversions you did were arbitrary Drowning - they weren't based on any analysis of what should be in the category, you were simply reverting any change I made. You did not add Category:Gang rape, Category:War rape, Category:Marital rape, Rape during the occupation of Germany, Rape during the liberation of France to the parent. Why not? I could cite dozens or hundreds of other articles that are about rape + women that could also go in the parent. It's arbitrary. It's better to clear out the violence cat of most of the rape articles and keep them all centralized in the rape category; leave the articles to discuss gendered issues of rape, don't use the category system to try to prove some point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not all rapes are committed against women. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is a British law, says (in subsection 1(1)) "A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents." The gender of neither party is explicitly stated, but clause 1(1)(a) in using the words "with his penis" implicitly makes person (A) male. That does not make person (B) female, nor does the use of the use of the word "vagina" in the same clause. Sexual violence by men against men does exist, and for eleven years British law has recognised that. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- We all register that both women and men are raped, in fact the sad truth is that more men are sexually assaulted than the public realises. However, the topic of conversation is whether or not it's relevant to categorise articles about rape with the gendered categories of Violence against women/men as well as Rape, especially if the articles themselves are about not just Sexual Violence, but Sexual Violence against women/men and one of the genders in particular (in that they are relevant to Gender Studies) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- read WP:DNWAUC - no-one is debating whether rape has something to do with gendered violence, and you'd have a hard time finding articles about rape that ARENT about gendered violence. It is essentially a violent crime based on gender. But you are ignoring WP:SUBCAT and the reason we have that, which is to reduce proliferation of categories and maintain consistency in terms of which articles are categorized where. If, as you suggest, we start moving things from Category:Rape and putting them in Category:Violence against women in any instance where a woman is somehow involved, and Category:Violence against men in case where men are involved, we'd also have to do the same for the national-level categories, so for example Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case, and everything else in Category:Rape in the United States, including most sub-categories, would _also_ have to be placed in Category:Violence against women in the United States and Category:Sex crimes in the United States. If extended to its logical conclusion, your suggestions would entail moving hundreds or thousands of articles and dual-categorizing them by parents. It would also create an endless source of debates, such as the one at Talk:Rape_culture where people are saying "It happens to men, so should be in Category:Violence against men", etc. It's a huge time sink and waste of time, and the much simpler, easier solution is to follow the process we use everywhere else for topic categories, which is, if the subject of the article is about something more specific that has a subcat, the article goes in the subcat, NOT the parent. The solution with Category:Rape, in recognition that it impacts all genders, is to simply put the category in both gendered parents. Our category tree can be dozens of levels deep, but the reason it's usable is because we don't replicate the parent categories on all of the articles in the children. Drowning, you have yet to cite any policy-based reason for violating WP:SUBCAT; you tried to claim that Category:Rape was non-diffusing but you've offered no arguments or evidence of same. The only argument you have to date is "Rape is a bad thing that happens to women b/c they are women, therefore it belongs in the top-level cat" - but you haven't given any criteria to discern which of the 1300+ rape articles we have should go in the VAW parent cat, and based on what? Let's stop talking about gender studies philosophy and start talking about how to apply categorization rules based on WP policy. I have given a clear policy-based argument, and I can back it up from instances of same throughout the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Obi-wan is clearly correct here, Drowning. There is zero need here to replicate the parent categories on the article. That goes above and beyond any debate about the subject of the original article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Although I think it would benefit the articles to have the gender specific categorisation, I have reverted my changes to remove the 'Violence against...' categories for the time being as consensus seems to side with yourself @Obiwankenobi: --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Obi-wan is clearly correct here, Drowning. There is zero need here to replicate the parent categories on the article. That goes above and beyond any debate about the subject of the original article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- read WP:DNWAUC - no-one is debating whether rape has something to do with gendered violence, and you'd have a hard time finding articles about rape that ARENT about gendered violence. It is essentially a violent crime based on gender. But you are ignoring WP:SUBCAT and the reason we have that, which is to reduce proliferation of categories and maintain consistency in terms of which articles are categorized where. If, as you suggest, we start moving things from Category:Rape and putting them in Category:Violence against women in any instance where a woman is somehow involved, and Category:Violence against men in case where men are involved, we'd also have to do the same for the national-level categories, so for example Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case, and everything else in Category:Rape in the United States, including most sub-categories, would _also_ have to be placed in Category:Violence against women in the United States and Category:Sex crimes in the United States. If extended to its logical conclusion, your suggestions would entail moving hundreds or thousands of articles and dual-categorizing them by parents. It would also create an endless source of debates, such as the one at Talk:Rape_culture where people are saying "It happens to men, so should be in Category:Violence against men", etc. It's a huge time sink and waste of time, and the much simpler, easier solution is to follow the process we use everywhere else for topic categories, which is, if the subject of the article is about something more specific that has a subcat, the article goes in the subcat, NOT the parent. The solution with Category:Rape, in recognition that it impacts all genders, is to simply put the category in both gendered parents. Our category tree can be dozens of levels deep, but the reason it's usable is because we don't replicate the parent categories on all of the articles in the children. Drowning, you have yet to cite any policy-based reason for violating WP:SUBCAT; you tried to claim that Category:Rape was non-diffusing but you've offered no arguments or evidence of same. The only argument you have to date is "Rape is a bad thing that happens to women b/c they are women, therefore it belongs in the top-level cat" - but you haven't given any criteria to discern which of the 1300+ rape articles we have should go in the VAW parent cat, and based on what? Let's stop talking about gender studies philosophy and start talking about how to apply categorization rules based on WP policy. I have given a clear policy-based argument, and I can back it up from instances of same throughout the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- We all register that both women and men are raped, in fact the sad truth is that more men are sexually assaulted than the public realises. However, the topic of conversation is whether or not it's relevant to categorise articles about rape with the gendered categories of Violence against women/men as well as Rape, especially if the articles themselves are about not just Sexual Violence, but Sexual Violence against women/men and one of the genders in particular (in that they are relevant to Gender Studies) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not all rapes are committed against women. The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is a British law, says (in subsection 1(1)) "A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents." The gender of neither party is explicitly stated, but clause 1(1)(a) in using the words "with his penis" implicitly makes person (A) male. That does not make person (B) female, nor does the use of the use of the word "vagina" in the same clause. Sexual violence by men against men does exist, and for eleven years British law has recognised that. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The current reversions you did were arbitrary Drowning - they weren't based on any analysis of what should be in the category, you were simply reverting any change I made. You did not add Category:Gang rape, Category:War rape, Category:Marital rape, Rape during the occupation of Germany, Rape during the liberation of France to the parent. Why not? I could cite dozens or hundreds of other articles that are about rape + women that could also go in the parent. It's arbitrary. It's better to clear out the violence cat of most of the rape articles and keep them all centralized in the rape category; leave the articles to discuss gendered issues of rape, don't use the category system to try to prove some point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- But removing Category:Violence against women means that the categorisation does not reflect that rape is often a gendered issue. I would argue that some articles have both categories, whilst others have just Category:Rape, as that category does not adequately reflect much of what Category:Violence against women entails --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have WP:SUBCAT for a reason - since categories are supposed to help with navigatin. There are simply too many rape articles to bubble all those relating to women up to the parent. All rape articles are relevant to Category:Gender-based violence, Category:Sexual_and_gender_prejudices and Category:Sexuality and society, but we don't place all rape articles in those categories as well. This is simply how categories work here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't that ignore the fact that rape often IS about violence against a specific gender, not humans as a whole? Your proposed categorisation is ignorant of the very reality of rape. Why can't you include articles in both? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories of people by year of birth/death
There is an ongoing discussion in the Village pump (Agora) at the Greek Misplaced Pages (el.wikipedia.org) about keeping or deleting birth/death categories like Category:1980 births and Category:1985 deaths. I know that the english and the greek categorization policy could be different, but Ι would like to have your opinion about keeping or deleting those categories. Thank you in advance.--Vagrand (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The year of birth (and to a lesser extent the year of death) categories may be useful one day with a category intersection facility - e.g. to enable readers/editors to select articles about people notable in a particular field in a particular (approximate) period (we mainly categorize by occupation+nationality rather than occupation+century). These categories only add 2 (fairly stable) category tags to an article; I'm more concerned about categorization schemes that cause an article to be in many (sometimes poorly defined) categories and cause lots of watchlist noise. So, on balance, my opinion is to keep these categories, but acknowledge that they are different from "navigation" categories which normally get diffused once they contain a few hundred articles. You might also want to look at categorization on the German Misplaced Pages which differs from that at enwp. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- They're still useful for navigation, because every biography will have a birth (and eventually, death), and in that way can help function as a kind of master index rather than the often picky and arbitrary categories for such things as occupation, place of origin, etc. I've used them when I'm unsure of the spelling of an article, or its title might use diacritics, or its title might have a disambiguator which could also vary widely, and if I don't then find the article I'm looking for in that category I'm reasonably confident it doesn't exist yet. "Diffusing" usually hinders that, if you aren't already intimately familiar with how a category structure has been "diffused" (or structures, if every other applicable category is as specific as it can be), or if you only know one fact for sure about a subject when a "diffused" category structure requires you to know two or three to find an article because the categories intersect separate facts. A few hundred articles in a category is not a hindrance to navigation when you know at least roughly what you're looking for because the categories sort alphabetically. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually these probably should be migrated to Wikidata. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, in Greek Misplaced Pages, we are discussing to write dates of births/deaths on wikidata and after that to delete those categories (if we deside to delete them). Xaris333 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sub-Categorization for Presidents
I am creating a separate Portal:Laws in India, every country has President in Country. Now when viewed it describes that "This category contains articles about the office of president as it exists within a country or nation-state, and people who have held the office." It is absolutely correct which explains things that whoever held the office as President would be listed in category.
But there is the need for making distinction between ex-Presidents and current President. So, I proposes to create separate sub-category for ex-Presidents of the Country and put all the ex-Presidents in the Category of ex-Presidents. There is the great difference between Person currently holding position and Person was holding position.
Another reason that I want to know who is the Current President of the Honduras. Now by visiting page it show 65 Pages i.e. Office Holder of Presidents but can't know instantly who is the current President of Honduras. If the new Category ex-Presidents is created and ex-Presidents moves there then only the current President of the Country would remain there. It would make easy to know from Categorization who is the Current President of the Country. Vineet Gupta , Advocate, 605, Sector 10D, Chandigarh (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- we don't in almost all cases do current vs ex categories, and such cats are regularly deleted. It just leads to too much category churn. A list is better for marking who is the current X, when they started, when it will end, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- You could also add the current office holder to the category's description page. It just wouldn't make sense to keep a separate category for just one individual when there are so many other ways of presenting that information. The main purpose of categories is to group related articles, and splitting them up in this way would hinder that. More readers are interested in seeing ALL the office holders together than in having to jump to a separate category just to see one of them. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- we don't in almost all cases do current vs ex categories, and such cats are regularly deleted. It just leads to too much category churn. A list is better for marking who is the current X, when they started, when it will end, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposing a category; Artists who use body fluids as a medium.
Hi! Never made a category before, but I noticed a category Wikimedia has that we lack here, that being artists who use body fluids as a medium in their work. We have an article; Body fluids in art, but no category for the artists themselves for tagging their pages. What do you think? --BenBurch (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Knights of Malta categories
Today I created Category:Sovereign Military Order of Malta, intended to be a category for all articles related to the modern Order as reconstituted in 1834. The SMOM has a body of pages around it not unlike those for countries, such as those in Category:Foreign relations of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. This seemed to me to be a logical new category, because before, articles like the foreign relations one were lumped together with pages on the medieval Knights Hospitaller and its descendants in places like Britain (Venerable Order of Saint John) that are not part of the SMOM.
The snag came when I got to the pages in Category:Knights of Malta. The vast bulk of pages in that category seem to be SMOM members, but not all of them. I started to move the relevant pages to Category:Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but stopped myself for a couple of reasons. First, a large majority of pages in Category:Knights of Malta seem to be SMOM members; it would be far less tedious to move the non-SMOM knights out of the category and into something else. Second, while the SMOM's institutions underwent a very clear break in 1834, allowing the category structure to easily show a difference between "before" and "after", the SMOM's membership did not have such a clean break, and there are many knights, like Carlo Candida, on both sides of the divide.
Add to that the already confusing terminology in some other pages, like Category:Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller, which has members from the medieval era to the present day. Even if pre- and post-1834 knights of Malta belong in one category, the terminology used in those ranked subcategories is not consistent. I think I need help sorting through all this.
Here is the category tree after undoing some of my changes:
| Click on "►" below to display subcategories: |
|---|
| Sovereign Military Order of Malta |
Fishal (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted Category:Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which you left empty. If I misunderstood you and you want to re-create it, go ahead, or leave me a note to undelete it. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking care of that. I think the scheme makes sense now. Fishal (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
IEG proposal on the category system in the English Misplaced Pages
I have submitted a proposal for an Individual Engagement Grant for the first phase of a project looking at the category systems in Wikimedia wikis. In this first phase I will research the nature of the English Misplaced Pages's category system, as the first step in designing ways to optimize category systems throughout WMF wikis. In later phases, I plan to
- Research how readers and editors utilize the category system in the English Misplaced Pages.
- Investigate the category systems in other language Wikipedias and in other WMF projects.
- Explore the value and feasibility of using Wikidata as the basis for the category system across WMF wikis. If deemed appropriate by the community, work with the community to develop and implement this.
- Utilize user-centered design methodologies to prototype various enhancements to the category system to improve the user experience. If deemed appropriate by the community, work with the community to develop and implement such enhancements.
If you would like to endorse this proposal, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Eyes needed
Neutral eyes needed at Talk:East Harlem#Question about categories (the final thread on the page) BMK (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Category pages will be movable soon
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Category_pages_will_be_movable_soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
How to deal with conflicting sources on how to categorize a topic
I'd like advice about a situation where there's disagreement about WP:Categorization. When there is disagreement (from sourced material, and among the editors) on how to categorize a topic, how shall this be handled? It certainly doesn't need a Controversy section discussing the disagreement, nor is it clear how to mention it in the text or how to deal with it in relation to related topics. The case I have in mind is an alternative health modality, Rolfing. The debate is whether it should be described as bodywork, manual therapy or manipulative therapy, or massage. Presently the article uses the term massage, however practitioners of Rolfing say that it is not massage. This disagreement comes about because a number of secondary sources call it a type of massage, while a number of other secondary sources avoid using the word massage and some even bother to clarify that it's often mistaken for massage. The word massage is sometimes used by the general population as a synonym for bodywork, yet bodywork practitioners often understand that the term "bodywork" is more inclusive; see bodywork (alternative medicine) for a brief review of this. (The word "massage" comes from the word for dough (masa for instance) and it has a connotation of kneading the muscles. Hands-on approaches that are more sophisticated than kneading will sometimes avoid the term massage.) Another factor: there is a massage tradition that has developed over time, and Rolfing does not have a place within that tradition but rather has its own history, teachers, schools, etc. One cannot attend massage school to learn Rolfing. Is there a WP policy on how to handle this sort of problem? I welcome suggestions, and also if an experienced editor would be interested in collaborating with me to put together a draft of changes to propose to the page's editors, I would appreciate it! (PS. I'm researching this question prior to adding the sources I've found that weigh in on each side of the debate - so the current article has only a couple of sources that pertain to categorization but I have more.)--Karinpower (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- These links might be helpful.
- Misplaced Pages:Categorization
- Misplaced Pages:Category names
- Rolfing
- Bodywork (alternative medicine)
- Manual therapy
- Massage
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative medicine
- Definitions of rolfing - OneLook Dictionary Search
- DMOZ - Search Results (rolfing)
- Glossary of alternative medicine (no entry for "Rolfing" at this time)
- —Wavelength (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Wavelength! Nice moniker, by the way. I have found some of these but some are new to me, so thanks. Incidentally, there *is* an entry for Rolfing in the Alt Med glossary, as a subcategory of "Manipulative and body-based methods" (under letter M). Massage and Rolfing are both on that list. Most of the references on WP, and many of the others, support the position that Rolfing is not a type of massage (including the massage and bodywork articles you linked to). But I'm wary of just making the edit on the article because the current group of editors have sharp teeth. Would you be willing to add the article to your watchlist and be ready to chime in on the topic? We could use some unbiased additional perspectives. Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- On your suggestion, I have added "Rolfing" to my watchlist, but I am not guaranteeing participation by me on the article or its talk page. My time is limited, and I have priorities. However, I have these comments to add to this discussion.
- I suggest a thorough review of as many definitions as possible for each of these expressions:
- "Rolfing", "bodywork" (alternative medicine), "manual therapy", and "massage"
- I suggest communication with one or more authenticated representatives of the Rolfing profession, for the purpose of finding an official online definition of "Rolfing" which can be used for resolving this disagreement.
- I suggest that the most prominent definition (which might be the most common definition) for each expression be followed.
- I suggest that the umbrella term(s) which by definition best apply to "Rolfing" be used for Misplaced Pages.
- In my personal copy of the book "Getting Better", by Adelaide Bry (ISBN 0-89256-044-4), Chapter 19 of Part I is entitled "Rolfing". Here are some excerpts, which do not necessarily represent its categorization correctly.
- "They have allowed themselves to be stretched, elbowed, pummelled, and massaged until some of them cried—and most of them are grateful for the experience." (page 160)
- "The reason Rolfing hurts is that the Rolfer massages your body on a very deep level." (page 161)
- "As the Rolfer continues massaging, he and the patient discuss these feelings." (page 162)
- I suggest that it might be possible to place the article in more than one of the three categories that you mentioned.
- —Wavelength (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Very helpful. (Regarding offical Rolfing rep, the marketing director has participated on the talk page and can be consulted, as well as their website, www.rolf.org.) --Karinpower (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- On your suggestion, I have added "Rolfing" to my watchlist, but I am not guaranteeing participation by me on the article or its talk page. My time is limited, and I have priorities. However, I have these comments to add to this discussion.