Category talk:People by name

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Statistics[edit]

  • 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC): 20,368 categories
  • 11:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC): 31,056 categories
  • 09:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC): 33,172 categories
  • 11:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC): 42,741 categories
  • 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC): 60,162 categories
  • 17:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC): 63,656 categories
  • 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC): 71,008 categories
  • 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC): 78,459 categories
  • 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC): 82,223 categories
  • 09:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC): 83,449 categories
  • 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC): 85,449 categories
  • 20:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC): 86,449 categories
  • 12:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC): 88,451 categories
  • 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC): 89,455
  • 12:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC): 94,462
  • 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC): 96,500
  • 05:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC): 105,101 subcategories
  • 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC): 108,534 subcategories
  • 09:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC): 145,088 subcategories

Rename[edit]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By default all categories are by name, so the "by name" suffix is even more redundant than the "by alphabet" suffix. "People names" or "People list" would be less redundant and confusing. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    By default all categories are "by alphabet". Generally, categories which are sorted directly by name (without internal structuralization) are named "by name" (Rivers by name, Streets by name...). Only several categories deviate from this standard and should be unified to prevalent standard. The suffix "by alphabet" is suitably used in cases of Category:Inscriptions by alphabet and Category:Letters by alphabet. Single sorting by name shouldn't be confussed with catorization by used alphabet. --ŠJů (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    "People list" is confusing: "list" is generally named the page with a text list, not a dynamic filled category.
    "People names" is confusing: the category contain media files about peoples sorted by people name, not only people names. --ŠJů (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet"

CPEC benifit discussion Zohaib Rao sabir (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove the files?[edit]

Should I run my bot to empty this category of it's files? There's a lot. Rocket000 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll do it. Rocket000 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. If in the process you want to rename it as well, this would be great. -- User:Docu at 07:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The discussion has been closed without consensus nor conclusion. --Foroa (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons talk:Categories. -- User:Docu at 13:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Include Category:Photographs_by_Eduard_Amphlett ?[edit]

There are about 50-100 such subcategories. Shall we keep them, create parent categories and include these instead (for the sample: Category:Eduard_Amphlett), or remove them from this category? -- User:Docu at 11:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Works of well known artists tend to remain in separate categories if there is separate info of the artist itself. Even more so if the artist has several disciplines. --Foroa (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My question wasn't about the content of these categories, but about their inclusion into this category. -- User:Docu at 11:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It makes no sense to include categories here that concern specifically the works of some people; only the people themselves should be in this category. --Foroa (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The subject is "photographs" not the person, so no, it shouldn't be in here. Rocket000 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should create parent categories like Category:Eduard_Amphlett and add those. --Jarekt (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. It worked fairly well for the subcategories of Images from the Tropenmuseum by photographer as it showed that some of the authors already had articles at one or the other Wikipedias (not all in Dutch ;) ) or lead to finds like Category talk:Photographs by Lonkhuyzen and a few (self-)portraits that otherwise might be lost (e.g. Category:G.F.J. Bley). 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)

Asked:_bot_for_DEFAULTSORT[edit]

FYI, See Commons:Village_pump#Asked:_bot_for_DEFAULTSORT discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

CR before Category:People by name[edit]

To insert a new line before the category, I added __HIDDENCAT__. It doesn't actually hide the category on all the subcategories using it.  Docu  at 05:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

  • But it does. The category was hidden in all people subcats -- that's how I found this edit. Trycatch (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's labeled "hidden category", but - on categories - __HIDDENCAT__ doesn't actually hide parent categories. For categories with persons with many topical categories (e.g. Category:Jimmy Wales), it increases readability.
      We could change the label BTW.  Docu  at 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I didn't know about this feature. Trycatch (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A change of a very large category take effect belatedly, a delay can be arround one week. --ŠJů (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why hidden?[edit]

Why just this category should be hidden? It"s a standard topical metacategory (though large), not some upkeep one only. --ŠJů (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See #CR before Category:People by name above.  Docu  at 16:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

People of Queensland[edit]

Please see Commons_talk:State_Library_of_Queensland/Subjects#Patterns about people. --  Docu  at 12:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

Most people categories are supporting articles in at least one of the Wikipedias, however many do not have interwiki links which would allow people to find them. I think we should run one of the interwiki bots which would add links to articles in wikipedias. --Jarekt (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe we could even get en:User:VolkovBot to add them here too. It syncs interwikis among various Wikipedias quite quickly. --  Docu  at 07:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I modified m:Pywikipediabot/interwiki.py so it works with Commons, (as far as I can tell the original interwiki.py does not work on Commons), and run it on all Category:Creator template home categories. I will try to run it on the Category:People by name next. --Jarekt (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is flat list[edit]

I noticed that lately that a subcategory tree is being build within this category. This is going to cause trouble, since this is suppose to be "flat list category" and Category:People suppose to have the tree structure. I am using current list to occasionally run a maintenance bot through all subcategories (without recursion), which are all assumed to be related to individual people. If that assumption is not true than bot will be messing things up. --Jarekt (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you revert the edit SJu just made to the category description (without prior discussion) and protect the page? --  Docu  at 07:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree: this category should be totally flat, and since it doesn't provide any use for the normal Commons user and clutters the user interface, but is indispensable for all automatic biographical tasks (like reading out authority control data), it should be hidden again. SJu's edit to delete the HIDDENCAT tag doesn't even give a reason. Why exactly do you want to keep it visible? Above some people seem kind of obsessed with this category, wanting to rename it, delete it, etc. This will happen again and again if it is visible; and what is even worse: people will remove the category manually. As I said, the category is utterly important. It's not important that it is visible, though. The name for such a category could even be random, but "People by name" is at least known to many Commons uploaders now, and is as good as any other ("Category:Indivudal homo sapiens" or whatever). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jarekt wrote on Category talk:Ships by name, "I agree with [..] etc" probably without actually reading most of the discussion and the contradicting arguments. I suppose SJu just tried to get away with here what he was doing there for months .. --  Docu  at 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
We have hundreds of meta categories "by name" and thousands of other meta categoies by some other criterion. We have also well-proven rules how to use them. What is your reason that a few of them should be considered "flat" and the others shouldn't? Most of thematic meta categories are somehow "flat" compared to some sister meta category. Most of meta categories "by name" contain subcategories of individual names, some of them contains also subcategories sorted by name. Why just this one meta category should by more "flat" than all similar meta categories? More specialized categories of people by name (e. g. Artists by name) should be categorized at the top of the main category of "people by name", outside the alphabet order. It is a standard relation between meta categories. Meta categories by two criteria are standardly categorized under parent meta categories by both of them. Thematic categories (by name, by number, by country, by color, by brand...) are standardly not hidden or tagged by "hiddencat". A better way is to teach the bots to use the standard meta categories and to ignore those of subcategories which are subordinate meta categories (there exist several ways how to distinguish them).
This category became hidden in September 2010 without previous consensus and without subsequent consensus. If somebody of you wish to differentiate two types of meta categories - "flat" and "non-flat", a systematic discussion should precede and such steps need to be think out thoroughly. Immethodical violation of standard rules of categorization is not an appropriate way. If you wish to use some kind of tags instead of categories, they should not dissrupt the standard system of categorization. If I would wish to check a content of the category "Paris" or "Buses by country" by my bot, I cannot to hide the category and throw all its subcategories away. I would need to respect the standard categorization system. Please, do it so too. --ŠJů (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The entire point of "by name" categories is that they are flat categories AKA index categories. --  Docu  at 06:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Right. We don't need and we don't want "Artists by name"! --FA2010 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. As there seems to be no support for the change SJu implemented, I'm restoring the previous configuration. Please avoid undoing it prior to new discussion. --  Docu  at 09:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with User:Docu on that one. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
So what about People by name by country‎ and Disabled people by name‎? Delete or not? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If the category is hidden, does that mean it should not be part of the main category tree? It's currently a member of Category:People and Category:Categories by name. --ghouston (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I was a bit confused about hidden categories, since their usage is inconsistent in places. However it seems that if it's a flat category, then it should not be part of the main category tree, which is heirarchical, it should be considered a maintenance category, and it should be marked hidden. Therefore, the topical categories People and Categories by name should be removed. --ghouston (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)