Category talk:People

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not a terrible idea, but either needs a shitload more articles in its list, or to be gone. DogP 21:50, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Added a small shitload. Will pinch another loaf add another few more craploads when I feel like it later. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's a nice category, but we have a LOT of articles about People to add this to! I'll help, in due course. Did so much yesterday I'm RW-tired today. DogP 13:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

We already have category:Notable People. One of these needs to go. ThunderkatzHo! 10:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I wholeheartedly agree. The easiest thing to do is probably remove whichever has fewer members. DogP 13:56, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
If they have an article here they are by definition notable. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Right, so which side does that put for? People? Or Notable People? ThunderkatzHo! 18:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
My devious plot is to replace all Category:Notable Peoples with Category:Peoples tonight. And it's titled wrong anyways, it should be "Notable people", with a lowercase 'p'. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:12, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
I question the value of this cat... however, if all that was in it were subcats, that might make sense (every "people" article would categorize them by what kind of people they are, like "authors"). humanUser talk:Human 15:46, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, there is a purpose for massive, broad categories like this one. If someone wants to view all our articles about people, then they should be able to come here. This may be a weak argument, but I would point out that on RationalWikiWiki, every article about a user is in category:users, as well as several smaller, more specific ones. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:56, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, on RWW all what, 30 articles on people are in the RW users cat. This cat has like 30 subcats alone. Why would anyone care about all our articles on people, more than perhaps all our scientist articles or author articles? (Not that I really care, as long as it is well-maintained and complete... no work for me, hehe). humanUser talk:Human 17:02, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
65 articles, plus 19 subcategories. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:25, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
Where, here, or at RWW? humanUser talk:Human 03:15, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
At RWW. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:26, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
What about RWWWW? Which matters most! humanUser talk:Human 03:29, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I accidentally added an extra 's'. That was supposed to read "RWW". --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I still object to putting people directly in this cat. It should be all subcats of types of people. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

People should have the ability to view a complete list of all articles about people, without having to parse which subcategory the person they're looking for belongs. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
But you are the only person who seems to think that. You used another wiki as an example, I note that a third wiki (some sort of encyclopedia) doesn't have a "people" category, they have cats for specific kinds of people. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Which does not mean I am wrong. Can I use the your-opinion-is-in-the-minority argument to argue for the existence of God now? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
No, that would be silly, which seems to be a theme tonight. "Opinion of one person on a collaborative project" is what I am referring to. It's not about "right" or "wrong". Let's see who else chimes in... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
I have noticed that you and I are the only ones who care about this. Why don't you spare yourself and back down now?  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:47, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing (except someone did comment on your talk page about it), and was going to suggest the same thing to you. Why don't you spare yourself and back down now? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
No. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

For what it's worth, I agree with Human on this. A category of sub-categories, with the various people articles in the subcategories.--Zelandoni 21:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems like RA is once again on a catting binge, adding all the individual articles here... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

FaFuxSake![edit]

over 160 articles & dozens of subcats - daft! The individual articles should be in subcats & NOT in the übercategory. if someone wishes to search for a particular person, they can use "search" or look at the appropriate sub cat. Oh! & RA - it's not just you & Human who's interested - there's always watchers, you know. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:54, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Susan & Human on this. Putting all the articles which are already in a People subcategory in the People general category as well (as RA seems to be doing) is going to take a long time to accomplish & is utterly pointless as far as I can see. Also it just looks kinda silly. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah, but think of the edit count!--Bobbing up 16:56, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
It's the only reason that I can think of to justify it. SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:58, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
If we "let" him undo the edits he'll get twice as many... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Could he really be Deborah? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
No, honestly. This is batshit insane, the sort of idiocy you'd get on CP! Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:41, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I fixed the "H"s, for obvious reasons. Shall we all do likewise and clean up one letter each? PS, keep the "people" cat open to make sure there is at least one sub-people cat left behind. PS, how come we don't have "journalists" or "reporters"? (ran into that trying to cat Brit Hume) ħumanUser talk:Human 19:25, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I've done a few. Thre's still 76 left though. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:11, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

The only motive you could think of for this is the most shallow, egotistical motive possible? You really do think little of me. You assume my ends are selfish. You assume that I consider the well-being of the site secondary my ambitions. You assume that I consider this site a means of jacking off to myself. You assume the worst of me.

You belittle my motives, you belittle my contributions, and so you belittle me. In the nine years since my first foray onto the internet, I have never been more insulted.

Is my being here, on this site, worth anything to you? Or do you consider me just a hanger-on, to be trashed when I clash with the room too much? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:07, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, no, we just wish you would discuss things like this with other people before embarking on massive catting sprees. Or didn't you notice? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
The point still stands. You assumed bad faith in my edits. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:19, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
No I didn't. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
That was a plural "you". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
If you didn't, then what do you all call this:
Ah, but think of the edit count!--Bobbing up 16:56, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
It's the only reason that I can think of to justify it. SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:58, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
If we "let" him undo the edits he'll get twice as many... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Could he really be Deborah? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
No, honestly. This is batshit insane, the sort of idiocy you'd get on CP! Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:41, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Explain to me how these statements do not reflect bad faith. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:34, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
For what it's worth, RA, the first couple of people to make that suggestion did so purely out of amusement; they weren't really involved in the discussion. I shouldn't be personally insulted by it. New3.pngPink() 21:37, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
EC x2)I rather fancy that it was all intended as a wee jest (my contrib was). Sorry you took it wrongly. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:39, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Surely if we accept Pink's claim of "that was a joke", all is in fun? And also, all is incomprehensible, and all is non-transferable and not valid after expiration date? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:46, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, too, for taking it wrongly. All is forgiven now, and eventually forgotten. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
No harm done, we all react before we mean to, sometimes. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:13, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Woo-hoo!!! With RA's changing of mentalist to "entertainers" this category now only contains other categories! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:07, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

This is STILL a very stupidly thought out category - Andy Schlafly is a Subcategory, not a People? And a Hacker is a People, not a Subcategory?!!! Agh! It's no wonder I stopped being the Category Nazi a long time ago. DogP 23:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe our categories aren't being thought out as well as they might be? Just an idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Since some of us take it upon themselves to do all the work without really asking any questions first... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:39, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Decision needed on what this Cat is actually for[edit]

Okay. This is the world's worst category, agreed? It makes no sense whatsoever. Fixing it is going to be hell, but I volunteer to help. But I'm not touching a single thing unless we come to a decision about what the cat should be. It seems to me there are two possible things a visitor might expect from a cat called 'People':

1. A list of articles about individual human beings, any member of Homo Sapiens counts, e.g. Andy Schlafly; or

2. A list of types of people, i.e. a list of subcategories, e.g. Hackers, Virgins, Sluts, etc., which leads to a further list of articles about such people.

How about a vote? We love voting round these parts recently. And it might help to clarify this argument. SO, please add your name to the appropriate section below as to which of those two descriptions this Category should be:

1. A list of articles about Humanoids.[edit]

  • DogP 23:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)

2. A list of Types of Humanoids, which leads to further lists of articles about Humanoids.[edit]

  • \pi 23:47, 5 February 2009 (EST)
  • Toast (if that means it should just be a cat of cats rather than a cat of cats & individuals)
  • Me vote here. But I don't approve of similar extreme trimming on other cats, just this one. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)
  • I once felt that this category should be used to track all of our articles on individual people—one giant, flat category. After several months and much thought about it, I feel that this category works best as a "supercategory", ideally containing only the various subcats of people. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:14, 6 February 2009 (EST)

3. Human, and human only.[edit]

  • ħumanUser talk:Human 23:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
    • I think that is just a subcat. \pi 23:50, 5 February 2009 (EST)
      • I am not a cat! How dare you? I am a people! 6 ħumanUser talk:Human 23:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Discussion on the voting above[edit]

    • I'm with Human on that one it is more a size thing, if it goes more than 200 or 400 articles it needs cutting back, but I think otherwise try to keep the cat tree as flat as possible. \pi - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 00:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)
    • I certainly agree with that, but isn't the flattest tree one that leads directly to a list of humanoids? I'm not fighting anyone on this - I just want the simplest and least deep cat tree. DogP 00:06, 6 February 2009 (EST)
      • But when you have to click next 200 about 3 or 4 times to get to W it is time for subcats. \pi 00:08, 6 February 2009 (EST)
      • Do we have articles on 800 individuals here at RW? DogP 00:11, 6 February 2009 (EST)
        • We would have nearly that many and we should have more to be honest. Also isn't this category people rather than persons or individuals? \pi 00:16, 6 February 2009 (EST)
          • OK, that changes things. But then why not divide the alphabet into, say, ten letter groups? Why create all these subcats of types of People?
            • Persons A-D doesn't sound as quite appealing as Creationist to the casual searcher. \pi 00:22, 6 February 2009 (EST)
            • That's a fair point, but why does it have to be buried one layer down? Doesn't a root-level 'Creationists' cat serve the same purpose? DogP 00:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Another problem with not having a cat that applies to articles about individuals is that we simply have no one way to track them - yet it seems logical that they are a specific type of article. I just tried to count all the articles on individuals, but it's impossible without tallying all the subcategories. That seems entirely counter-intuitive to me. Thoughts? DogP 00:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

May I add that the idea of a "tree" is Darwinist thinking at its worst? As PJR taught me, the "tree of life" is a web, not a tree. Some parts are "tree-like", but most of the story is a web. As such should our cats be. In general, I am in favor of more cats on most articles rather than less. And, yes, cats that get "giant" (hundreds or thousands of possible entries) should be "treed". Otherwise, let the cats roam free. Cur, do you collude in this philosophy? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Individual people[edit]

Please do not put individuals in this cat, see the above discussion. - π 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Best of[edit]

Do we have any other good biography articles? - π 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely we do by now, there are so many. Ray Comfort, maybe? Hovind? Behe? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Important people?[edit]

Why are these people listed as important?

  • Ben Bernanke
  • Murray Rothbard
  • Nobel disease
  • Ray Comfort
  • Wendy Wright

BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. Template:Category transcludes articles listed as important by that rating template, which has never been applied logically or consintently since it was set up. Time to get rid of it? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)