Category talk:Black Francis
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Certes in topic BRD discussion: Eponymous categorization
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
BRD discussion: Eponymous categorization
edit@Koavf: This reversion of yours is wrong and is devoid of common sense. That is not stated in WP:EPON or WP:EPCATPERS, and since you removed the only content category, you have cut it off from Wikipedia's content categorization tree. Now the category is a dead end for readers. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye: I just looked at 27 subcategories of Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians and none of them are categorized like this. Why would Category:Black Francis be different from Category:Tracy Chapman and Category:Ray Charles. Or why would we include Category:American alternative rock musicians and not Category:1965 births? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I guess it isn't as common for musicians. Clearly you are passionate about this, so I'm not going to press further. Still though, I think it is a bad idea to have these parentless categories. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye: I'm confused as to why you even brought up this topic if the only response you have to even the mildest questioning or scrutiny is "whatever". I want to discuss this with you; do you have anything to say in response to my questions? And these categories aren't parentless--they are just part of a scheme for categorization that is for Wikipedia maintenance. How are these musician categories different from other eponymous categories? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Koavf: They are parentless if you are a non-editor, who can't see hidden categories. For examples of eponymous categories that actually do have content parent categories, see:
- Category:George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Mark Twain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Thomas Paine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Ptolemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:John Locke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- @Koavf: They are parentless if you are a non-editor, who can't see hidden categories. For examples of eponymous categories that actually do have content parent categories, see:
- @Mr. Guye: I'm confused as to why you even brought up this topic if the only response you have to even the mildest questioning or scrutiny is "whatever". I want to discuss this with you; do you have anything to say in response to my questions? And these categories aren't parentless--they are just part of a scheme for categorization that is for Wikipedia maintenance. How are these musician categories different from other eponymous categories? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Koavf: I guess it isn't as common for musicians. Clearly you are passionate about this, so I'm not going to press further. Still though, I think it is a bad idea to have these parentless categories. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- and others. And again, see WP:EPCATPERS:
Categories using the name of a person hold articles directly related to that person. Remember this when placing the article in larger categories. If the person is a member of a category, put the article about the person in the larger category. If articles directly related to the person are also members of the larger category, put the category with the person's name in the larger category. This often results in the article and category being categorized differently. For an example of this see George W. Bush and Category:George W. Bush.
- Note again the content categories in that category. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye: I recommend posting to WT:CAT. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Post what and why, exactly? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye: Which categories should eponymous categories be in and under what circumstances? We clearly have some disagreement here and it relates to a lot more than just this category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr. Guye: I recommend posting to WT:CAT. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- and others. And again, see WP:EPCATPERS:
- As I have complained before, the category system is trying to do two jobs and falling between the stools. Membership can mean either "is a" or "is somehow related to". Whilst Black Francis is an American alternative rock musician, Category:Black Francis isn't and nor are many of its members, so it can only qualify using the "is somehow related to" criterion. I would add such categories only to tree(s) of "categories of categories", i.e. leave it only in Category:Wikipedia categories named after American musicians and any "Wikipedia categories that ..." categories that it belongs in. This avoids false conclusions such as "Headache (song) is a musician" which can be reached by traversing the category tree and incorrectly assuming "is a" relationships. Certes (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we have both set and topic categories. User:Certes, are you suggesting that we switch to having only one or the other? Or two separate hierarchies of both? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think a wholesale switch would be too difficult but the ability to identify more clearly which is which would help readers, especially when using tools such as PetScan. Certes (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Certes, I see no guideline or policy that supports your claim that category membership can mean "is somehow related to", and a couple of guidelines that say it does not mean this, including WP:NONDEF which says that such categorization should be avoided. Upon what are you basing your claim? Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that no guideline says this should happen. I base my claim on what articles actually do appear in categories. For example, Category:William Shakespeare contains an asteroid, an insult and a lawsuit. Such vaguely associated members can be useful and only become a problem if we classify that category within a parent category which should be reserved for articles. The Shakespeare category used to be in inappropriate parents such as Category:16th-century English writers, at which point a category traversal searching for writers would come up with asteroids, insults, etc. Certes (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, other stuff happens, and it should be based on policy and guidelines, don't you agree? If you think categories like that are useful then you should attempt to gain consensus for a change of policy at WT:CAT. (Once upon a time, I agreed with you, until I came around to the prevailing point of view.) But as long as this is the policy, we should not knowingly go against it, just because we think it is "useful" as the community has decided otherwise. As far as your examples, eponymous categories for people generally should not be created although Shakespeare may well be an exception; this is governed by WP:OCEPON. As two of the three articles don't qualify imho per WP:CATDEF, I've removed them from the category. For the other one (Prick) I've changed the category to Category:Shakespearean phrases, which does satisfy CATDEF. We'll see if that sticks. Three down, nine hundred thousand to go... Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for tidying up. I agree that we should be following the guidelines but, as you imply, fixing all cases would be an ambitious task. The most practical solution may be to keep eponymous categories out of inappropriate parents. Certes (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, other stuff happens, and it should be based on policy and guidelines, don't you agree? If you think categories like that are useful then you should attempt to gain consensus for a change of policy at WT:CAT. (Once upon a time, I agreed with you, until I came around to the prevailing point of view.) But as long as this is the policy, we should not knowingly go against it, just because we think it is "useful" as the community has decided otherwise. As far as your examples, eponymous categories for people generally should not be created although Shakespeare may well be an exception; this is governed by WP:OCEPON. As two of the three articles don't qualify imho per WP:CATDEF, I've removed them from the category. For the other one (Prick) I've changed the category to Category:Shakespearean phrases, which does satisfy CATDEF. We'll see if that sticks. Three down, nine hundred thousand to go... Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that no guideline says this should happen. I base my claim on what articles actually do appear in categories. For example, Category:William Shakespeare contains an asteroid, an insult and a lawsuit. Such vaguely associated members can be useful and only become a problem if we classify that category within a parent category which should be reserved for articles. The Shakespeare category used to be in inappropriate parents such as Category:16th-century English writers, at which point a category traversal searching for writers would come up with asteroids, insults, etc. Certes (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we have both set and topic categories. User:Certes, are you suggesting that we switch to having only one or the other? Or two separate hierarchies of both? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)