Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 21

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en proposal

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Simple English is possibly relevant for people here. —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this proposal. However, I am not able to express this oppinion there on ENwp since I am currently banned there. Can we have a voting decision here? so then the voting conclusion can be carried accross to there? :) I(am)(ARice) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To help our own discussion I put part of the discussion here. --Cethegus (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC):[reply]

: As a regular editor on Simple Wikipedia, I think that this would be a very good idea. We should give confused students the chance to read from a less complex and in depth source. Say a french student doesn't understand an article on En Wiki, he could just go to the Simple version.

However, there are thousands of editors that would not profit from this add on, so if it happens it should happen as subtly as possible on an article, but not to subtle as to be hidden from the people that really need it.
Gwib (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to submit this to Bugzilla or something? I'm green on these procedures...-- penubag  02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular editor of Simple English Wikipedia, I like the idea generally. I think it is a good idea to have the interwiki in a separate box (I guess it can be done by creating a special Extension for MediaWiki which is installed on English Wikipedia only). I don't think it is a good idea to have redlinks there. huji—TALK 12:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I am also a regular editor of Simple English Wikipedia and support huji's point. (Personally I would prefer to have "Simple English" in black as it is not necessary to lead people to the Simple English Main Page from each article.) - One might test the red links for a limited time though. If it would attract good editors to SEWP that would be nice. But I think the SEWP should have the right to end this scheme if it attracts too much vandalism. --Cethegus (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your point Cethegus. We need to have some say so as to be able to end this really quickly if we get too much attracted vandalism or if we get too many bad editors, as our current administrative powers are not as great as they could be. We have too few administration people to be able to quickly deal with a huge influx of vandalism. There needs to be some sort of stopper so that we can terminate this to get rid of the influx of vandalism. Razorflame 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (4/4):

Oppose (0/4):

Comments:

Vote here


(account creation required)

My vote is clear. But it does not seem to make great sense to vote when you have not the choice to vote against the motion. --Cethegus (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Rules addition

Here we go: I've decided to add a new rule to the Deletion policy to account for those pages not in English. It would be G13, and it would be for pages Obviously not in English. Anyone here agree with this? Razorflame 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am no sure General rules would be the correct place. A5 would be a better option. Under general, it also applies to user pages (as long as it isn't offensive, put what you want there), User talk (we get a good number of people asking questions of users in their native tongue, more so with our German admins), talk pages (sometimes they just cant ask the question properly in English and have to use their native tongue), Templates (say.. the handful of templates for non-romanized names) and if/when someone think of doing it, translated wiki:help pages. There is also the problem where part of the article is not in English but the rest is (lyrics to national anthems for example). -- Creol(talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Creol. It should be only article specific, and should have no bearings on user created pages, as user pages should be allowed to make their own comments in whatever language they are native in. Razorflame 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I add it? Razorflame 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I got no reply to my question, I went ahead and added it because the messages from above led me to believe that it was alright to add it to articles only. Razorflame 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Project

I would like to start one on this wikipedia. However, Im not really that sure how... could you help please? ^^ IamARice 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project would include any articles that link some way to alternative sexualities, including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and additionally, Pansexual, Asexual, Antisexual, Technosexual, and any others that fit into this alternative group IamARice 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As with IuseRosary, it would be best to create one in your userspace and then if you get lots of members, then you can move it out into the mainspace. Razorflame 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I create it in my userspace? IamARice 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to title of it to be? Razorflame 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Wikipedia LGBT Project :) unless theres anything you think more appropriate? IamARice 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Click this link to start the userpage: User:Iamandrewrice/Simple Wikipedia LGBT Project. Razorflame 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :D IamARice 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Razorflame 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Razorflame... am I allowed to rearrange my talk page as I wish? So technically if it is my talkpage, I cannot be accused of vandalising it for doing anything to it, right? IamARice 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I would ask one of the administrators. Razorflame 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. There is always the possibility of making a mistake when "rearranging" messages from someone and so changing the meaning of a discussion. You should also not remove warnings which have been given, although when you archive a page it is OK to leave them on the archived page. --Bärliner 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually no, it was Jeffpw that inspired the idea... he was discussing this with me before you created yours. But I guess great minds think alike ;) PS, IuseR, I like your nu signature IamARice 20:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the talk page is mine, and I wish to change it round to show artistic effect, that is ok, right? It will be one of the things that encourages people to come to my talk page and leave me a message, because of how interesting it is :) Thank you IamARice 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as warnings placed on your talk page are still there, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Razorflame 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i won't be deleting anything... just rearranging it... thank you ^_^ IamARice 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I see no problem with it. Razorflame 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razorflame... i'm not sure if you read my last appology... well anyway... if you havnt, i'll say it again. I am really really sorry for snapping at you before. I did it in the heat of the moment, and I didn't mean it. I was doing the color changes for you, because you were my adopter, and it was your thread, and I wanted to help you... but I didn't go about it the right way, and for this, I appologize, so even though I know I was doing it for you, I ended up doing it to be stubborn. I was hoping... that if you could in some way forgive me, then hopefully you might reconsider mentoring me... IamARice 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to prove yourself in other ways before I will mentor you again. Razorflame 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do to prove myself? I really need your help... i'm struggling so much with everything... and I don't have anyone at the moment that is here to help me... again i am sorry for the mistakes i have made... but hopefully you can help me not to make any more... IamARe 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you can still ask anyone for help here, or admins on their talk pages. We're willing to help with anything at all if you just ask, a mentor just watches more closely. Archer7 - talk 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you... but I would say that considering the amount of mistakes that I have made already, i really do kind of need some close watching, as I don't want to get into any more trouble, as I really do mean well... :S IamARe 14:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of us have managed to pick up the general idea of the place gradually over time. The best way to do this is to work hard at articles, because that's the whole idea behind the place. By talking via article talk pages about content and on RfDs, you get a much better idea about how the place works and what rules people generally follow, as we don't have them all written down. Archer7 - talk 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come you don't have them all written down? Oo And i don't understand... one minute I'm told I shouldnt be talking on talk pages, but now you're telling me I'll learn a lot from it? IamARe 14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages aren't the same as user talk pages. User talk pages aren't essentially in the mainspace, but article talk pages are. An article talk page is to discuss the article it belongs to. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Gwib stated, user talk pages are for questions and comments that are directed towards the user in question. Razorflame 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks razorflame :) IamARe 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Project members wanted

LGBT SimpleWikiProject

This currently only has one member (me) lol... so if any of you are interested in joining, please help

)

i cant do this on my own... IamARe 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring info to EN from robot

Currently here, the information covered under 'Eastern and Western Views', which I spent a lot of time on, is not actually covered at all on EN wiki... and I cannot transfer it over myself as I am a banned user.

There is a lot of information there including a lot of references that took time to find. I was wondering if another member of the community would copy and paste it to EN wikipedia? The wording does not need to be changed, as it seems perfectly good english even if some of it is simple, and if they would prefer to unsimplify it at a later point, then they could do what they want... but I was hoping that that whole 'Eastern and Western Views' section could just be added to the Robot Page on EN. It could possibly go under the 'Competitions and Exibitions' section that is there at the moment.

What do you think? IamARe 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have forgotten, you are the subject of a lifetime ban from EN and requesting someone else to add information to EN could be considered to be the same as asking another member to act as a meatpuppet for you, and they could then face sanctions themselves. Forget about EN, focus here. MindTheGap (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no it would not count as meatpuppeting... as I have simply stated something that needs to be done eventually... so whoever does it is not a meatpuppet of me, but doing something that I have pointed out to them. Thank you for your cooperation IamR 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking someone to edit EN on your behalf when you are the subject of a lifetime ban. I don't think anybody would be prepared to do that as they would be in danger of receiving a ban themselves for doing so. And by making this request there is little chance the information will ever be added to EN as it will be removed due to your lifetime ban. Having read through your reasons for being banned (and a ban, as opposed to a block, is not that easy to obtain over there) I am amazed you are still trying to find ways to circumvent the EN community's decision. You are a persona non grata over there, it seems, so please don't ask members here to risk their reputations to help you continue your game. MindTheGap (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And actually MindTheGap, if what you say is right, then I have already meatpuppeted (but you are not correct, so I have not therefore meatpuppeted)... as Barliner asked me about what I meant on EN wikipedia on one article there when I made a mistake, so I told him/her/it what exactly was meant to have been there instead of the mistake, and he/she/it took it over there. Barliner is a very well respected administrator here, and I am sure that she certainly would not have broken the rules. You are a lot newer here MindTheGap, so can I suggest reading up properly on some of the policies here before involving yourself in anything like this? IamR 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also, 'MindTheGap', would you please mind telling me what this 'game' is that I am playing? IamR 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted pages

Has still not been updated. Perhaps we should ask for it to be set up to run on a regular basis, maybe once a week? adit (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been asked for, and for some reason (server time perhaps) it just is not going to happen soon, and no chance of once a week I'm afraid, However over 600 articles still have 9 links to them, and many are either uncreated or are created under a slightly different name, so there is plenty of work for us still. --Bärliner 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scary part is that at least one article has over 500 links to it. Many others which are created by templates (the city template for swiss cities in particular) are numbering in the hundreds as well. -- Creol(talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switzerland must have a ton of links to it because of the municipality pages I've been hard at work making. Razorflame 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial workaround: Using the last backup (12/18), I created a list of the most linked to articles (at that time) that currently do not exist. It is not updated daily (took much of the day to do it..) but is several months more up-to-date than what we currently have. The list is Here.-- Creol(talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

place stubs

en.wikipedia has stubs for every incorporated town, county, and township in the US, created by a bot with census data - would it make sense to try to do that here? —Random832 (t/c/e) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those extra stubs would seem to give us quantity over quality. How many would ever be expanded beyond the raw data?--Bärliner 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have enough people to deal with the different stubs. For now, we just need to keep our one central stub. Razorflame 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concern over simple english namings

I saw recently that the name for very good articles was..... that (very good articles). 'Article' is not a word in simple enlish, and therefore, it doesn't keep in fitting with our policies if we keep it as that. A more appropriate wording would be 'Very Good Pages', 'VGP' for short... the current wording is certainly sub-standard for something that is supposed to be about 'super-standard' articles. IamR 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also fitting in with this is the fact that the template for 'VG' articles is 'VGood'... which seems completely illogical, as it should follow on in the pattern as 'VG'. IamR 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we did this, we would have to change every single Wikipedia help guide such as How to write Simple English articles or List of aricles all languages should have which would be troublesome; We also already have an article definition here which explains what an article is. --Gwib -(talk)- 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So just because we're stuck in our wrong ways, doesn't mean we shouldnt change just because it takes a bit of effort? 'Article' is not a word that is included in any kind of basic english... and therefore, calling a 'page' this is very innapropriate for this kind of site. IamR 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a situation where "page" only seems to be simpler than "article". Check this out: Translations of "article" and Translations of "page". If someone doesn't speak English as their first language, "article" is likely going to be easier for them to understand because it's more likely to be a very similar word in their native language. "Page" has much more variety in its translations. Also, talk pages, user pages, the Main Page, project pages, category pages are all...pages. However, they are not eligible for Very Good status. Only the articles may be chosen for this honor. For these 2 reasons, I think we should keep the wording as is. · Tygrrr... 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we can still differentiate between the VG articles and normal pages by calling it a Very Good Page... it doesn't have to be a 'Very Good Article'. And actually, 'page' is very similar to most other indoeuropean languages's words, but 'article's' cognates in other languages mean very different things... IamR 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, it would be too much work to switch all of the pages from article to page. And I completely agree with Tygrrr here. Page has too many other different definitions that would only serve to complicate matters. Article is easier to understand. Razorflame 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not a simple english word. IamR 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have gone over the arguments as to why we think that "article" suits this site better than "page". If you still remain unconvinced, please re-read the arguments. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the arguments and answered all you points. However, you have still not answered mine... the fact that it is not a word that occurs in basic english. IamR 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you haven't read over the arguments or you would have stopped trying to convince us that "page" would suit this Wiki better than "article". Here is the word article in other languages:

  • French: article
  • Catalan: article
  • Interlingua: articulo
  • Persian: مقاله (maghaaleh)
  • Romanian: articol
  • Scots: airticle
  • Spanish: artículo
  • Tok Pisin: Atikel

I think you'll agree that every single one of those with a possible exception of Persian (since I don't know how to pronounce it) resembles the english word. This means that foreign visitors to this site (for whom SEWP is intended) will better understand "article" over "page" since it resembles their native language rather than "page" which doesn't. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of possible meanings of page is another potential problem. From Wikitionary:
  1. One side of a leaf of a book or manuscript.
  2. The type set up for printing a page.
  3. (obsolete) A serving boy - a youth attending a person of high degree, especially at courts, as a position of honor and education;
  4. (UK) a youth employed for doing errands, waiting on the door, and similar service in households;
  5. (US) a boy employed to wait upon the members of a legislative body.
  6. (in libraries) the common name given to an employee who's main purpose is to replace materials that have either been checked out or otherwise moved, back to their shelves.
  7. A boy child.
  8. A contrivance, as a band, pin, snap, or the like, to hold the skirt of a woman's dress from the ground.
  9. A track along which pallets carrying newly molded bricks are conveyed to the hack.
 10. Any one of several species of South American moths of the genus Urania.
 11. (figuratively) A record; a writing.

Whereas article is clearer for those without English as a first language MindTheGap (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And lets not forget it has multiple meanings as a verb also. Article is just a noun while Page is a very ambiguous noun and verb. -- Creol(talk) 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Gwib is a list of the translations of 'page':

  • French-Page
  • Italian-Pagina
  • Dutch-Pagina
  • Spanish-Página
  • Portuguese-Página
  • Romanian-pagină
  • Filipino-pahina
  • Japanese-ページ (Peij/peiju)
  • Korean-페이지 (Pengiji)
  • Chinese-页 [pè(yè)]

So next time Gwib, if you are going to say that 'article' sounds like other languages, then actually have a look at what the counterarguement's translation is. And anyway, your ideas Gwib are completely Euro-centric, which Wikipedia is not. My translations are similar to languages that are the other side of the world from europe anyway! So the fact that either word is similar to other european languages does not mean anything anyway (even though if it did, 'page' would win). So therefore, it is what is in basic english! not other languages I-R 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. An english word being close to another language's word is vital in understanding that language. I speak french fluently having lived in Switzerland all my life and 90% of my vocabulary comes from the similarities between french and english words. And with 11 different meanings (see above), page is a complex word for someone who may not even speak basic english. Article has only 7 different meanings, three of which relate to what we want "article" to be understood as. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"GWIB", you are completely wrong, because if what you are saying is correct, then 'Page' is better because it has links with so many more languages around the world!! See my translations above, compared to... 'yours'... I-R 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Good Page could be translated to a young boy who is good at running errands in an English country house, or a good moth from Brazil. An article has a less diverse possible translation. MindTheGap (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat what me and others have already said. I suggest that you take a deep breath, maybe step away from the computer for a few hours and when you feel ready, come back to write another "rack along which pallets carrying newly molded bricks are conveyed to the hack". I mean article, sorry. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MindTheGap... that is not a good example, as the word 'page' in this sense is completely different in other languages, so they would not have that kind of link... (so their words for 'page-servant' are completely different. Not only this, but that use of the word page is no longer in common english). Article, as you mention, is not a word in basic english.
Gwib... well since that last sentence of yours didn't even make sense, I suggest welcomingly that you go take a break, and revise your 'basic english'... or actually, your 'english'. It is understandable that you would have forgotten it by living in Switzerland so long...
Regards... (to MindTheGap... for being so helpful) :) I-R 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What MindTheGap means is that coming across a word that one doesn't know, one uses a dictionary to look up the meanings of that particular word. Page has 11 totally different meanings, one of which I used as an example that was unfortunately lost on you. Article has only 7 alternative meanings, 3 of which already relate to what we want an outside user to understand it as.
A user faced with a word he doesn't know and 11 possible meanings of it will be quite perplexed, whereas one who is faced with 7 (3 of which are similar) is more understanding. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ps. A lot of Switzerland speaks over 3 languages fluently, don't count on your stereotypes of cheese-eating french-speaking skiiers for the basis of a little insult.
In reply to the Gwob, i think it is you that is not getting the point. Page may have 11 different meanings in english, but first of all, the most common use is to mean the one I am talking about. Secondly, the other meanings are not in common english. Thirdly, the words that i listed above in other languages (of which I found more languages with similar words than you did... and from more widespread than you did...) translate as 'Page' in the meaning that I am talking about. Their translation for a 'page-servant' are completely different, and share no link with the word page. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
And also Gwob, I am part french, and I find that little stereotype you just made very insulting. I think you should retract it. And trust me on this, I will know more about european culture than you possibly ever will... and that is a fact. I-R 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will reply on your talk page since this is getting off topic. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

There are currently several categories for different ethnic groups... such as Category:European people ...and Category:Maltese people ... and stuff like that. however, i have a concern. In the categories, the 'individual notable people' are put in the same long lists as the 'ethnicities' or whatever you want to call them. This means for example that on 'European people' category, the famous people from europe (well the ones that are actually there) are just put in the list with all the 'European ethnicities', meaning it is difficult to actually find what you are looking for. I therefore suggest that all the ethnic categories should be split into the 'people (the ethnicity)' and then 'important people (the notable individual people from there... not the whole race), or whatever other names may be decidably more appropriate. There isn't much to do at the moment if we do decide to go ahead with it, and in fact i will go redo it all myself... but we need to agree on the termings first... IamR 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a change. The category system is designed to allow for nationalities as a legal concept, and ethnic groups. Thus the category "Maltese people" would include anybody who holds a Maltese passport, or maybe claims maltese descent. An article on "Maltese people" would cover the "native islander". The category "English people" is a subcategority of "nationalities". There would in fact be a great deal of work to be down as under your system every individual biography would need reordering to allow for a nationality and an ethnic group, and what ethnic group would you or I fall into, both having several ethnicities? The biographies rarely provide the necessary information to make the change you propose.--Bärliner 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this (classify by ethnicity) might be extremely problematic; Take for example modern-day France. Most people there are European. Yet the typical French person (not immigrated) is significantly different (as to looks) from the typical Spanish or typical German person. From those that immigrated, most came from Noth Africa, probably Morocco. Take a French person from the south of the country, say Montpellier, and they look different than one from the north, say from Lille; Or take for example the Moors. All that told them apart was that they were of Islamic religion; most of them were either Berber or Arabs. The Berber are a "tribe" from North Africa; the "Arabs" is a whole mixture of different people again. Marie Curie (Nobel Prize for Physics, early 1900s) was French of passport; both her parents were Polish. Would you consider her French, or Polish? - Same question for Kurt Gödel, Franz Liszt, Nikolai Gogol, Vladimir Nabokov? - So either we oversimplify,"black" -> from Africa, "caucasian" -> from Europe, "Latino" -> From Central America, etc (which would be a big crime), or we are in for rather complex explanations in simple language; Which of the two do you prefer? --Eptalon (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my being in agreement with everything Eptalon and Barliner have stated, there is also other problems with all the recent moves. The adjective form of many groups is not the group itself. Moors people? Mongols people? Those are akin to using England people, or Europe people. Many groups are never (or have never been) listed as "---" people, they are always the "---"'s: for example the Huns and the Angles. In general it is easier to just look at every other wikipedia out there and see the manner in which they are named. Several of the moves have been reverted as they are just plain wrong and most of the rest probably should be also. -- Creol(talk) 23:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have all completely misunderstood with what I have said. I just can't even begin to express how much you have gone off on a tangent so much that I don't even understand what you are actually talking about. What I simply meant was that for example, on the category:European people, you have several different nationalities and ethnicities listed, such as 'Jutes', and 'Maltese people'... but then, you have indiviudal people listed in there amongst all that, like 'Alexander Lukashenko'. It seems completely ridiculous to me for a person who has a page on wikipedia to be labelled put in the category as 'European people', as this would mean that all the thousands of people there will be that are of 'european' descent that are listed on wikipedia will be put in this category. They instead should (if being in a category like this at all) have been put in a separate category from 'European people', as the European people is for the different nationalities and groups in europe, not for famous people of european descent. IamR 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the category system is to put anything in its subcategory. No one should be "European" but rather in one of the subcategories of European people.--Bärliner 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well therefore, put we need to put those people in a subcategory, which I will do. however, we need to discuss what the title for these sabcategories are going to be. 'Famous European people'? IamR 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories are probably already there : English people, French people etc. Sometimes a person from Germany does not go in the category "German people" but in "German politician", which is a subsubcategory---Bärliner 18:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well why was that example that I listed above in the main 'european people' category? Oo I-R 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) When Alexander Lukashenko was initially categorized, there was no category for Belarusian people. It is the general policy to not create subcategories until there are atleast 3 articles to put into them. Because of this, he was placed in the lowest categories he fell under, Cat:Belarus and Cat:European people. When cat:Belarusian people (a subcat of both European peole and Belarus) was created, he should have been removed from the other two cats and placed into it. He was only placed into the new category and not removed from both of the old ones (or the old one was not placed as a subcat.. need to check that one out) -- Creol(talk) 18:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was the second one, Belarus wasnt a subcat of European people - fix that and cat cleaned him. -- Creol(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_21&oldid=2325172"