Category talk:Individuals
Add topicDoes "Individuals" not mean "a specific individual"? Beatles aren't an individual, but they are (were) a group of four individuals. It gets tricky at that point. A group of 1000 is consequently made up of 1000 individuals. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion debate
[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I am unaware of any sanction or consensus supporting inclusion of the members of this category. I recommend making this a hidden category, using it as a cleanup list to eliminate entries that ought not be included, depopulating it, and deleting it. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, at least deprecate it for new additions. Equinox ◑ 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say keep for nicknames such as JBiebs and Dubya. The current members, however, are a different story. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Put differently, let some individual people be included in their surname entries, such as Hitler or Einstein. On existing practice and existing regulation: From WT:CFI: "With the exception of geographic entities (for which see the section "Place names"), there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities." I am unware of a consensus that supports exclusion of all individual people from all sense lines. --Dan Polansky 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The longstanding practice of only including only given names and surnames of individuals reflects a longstanding consensus, as does WT:NOT and numerous deletion decisions of individual names. Actual individuals are incidentally included, usually in WP dab and other links. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I actually think we should keep it (at least for now) as long as we have some individuals like Plato, Socrates etc. Since these are all one word, they're harder to delete than say, David Cameron. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't they be kept anyway, as names (like we have Smith), without reference to specific people? Or was nobody else ever called Socrates? Equinox ◑ 17:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is as long as we have enough specific individuals to merit a category, keep it. If we delete all of these (which I don't oppose) then this category should go as well. See w:Socrates for the second question. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You mean w:Socrates (disambiguation), right? --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well yes, was just quicker to type w:Socrates. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- You mean w:Socrates (disambiguation), right? --Yair rand (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is as long as we have enough specific individuals to merit a category, keep it. If we delete all of these (which I don't oppose) then this category should go as well. See w:Socrates for the second question. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't they be kept anyway, as names (like we have Smith), without reference to specific people? Or was nobody else ever called Socrates? Equinox ◑ 17:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I actually think we should keep it (at least for now) as long as we have some individuals like Plato, Socrates etc. Since these are all one word, they're harder to delete than say, David Cameron. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- The longstanding practice of only including only given names and surnames of individuals reflects a longstanding consensus, as does WT:NOT and numerous deletion decisions of individual names. Actual individuals are incidentally included, usually in WP dab and other links. DCDuring TALK 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Bad name for a category, and a bad choice of entries. Biblical characters, for example, already have a Category:Biblical characters. Giving it a new parent would be enough. Also, I don't like to see people defined by their actual surname. However there's a need for a more limited category named, for example, "Historical characters" - really ancient ones with one-word names,like Plato, Euclid, Confucius that are outside categories yet. A category for nicknames would make sense too. --Makaokalani 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Einstein and Mother Teresa are not historical characters, and this "longstanding practice" spoken of was a rules-first approach that has not, in fact, been carried out in practice. DAVilla 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- History is not limited to "really ancient" periods. Einstein and Mother Teresa are historical characters, for that matter. Anyway, we don't have a Category:Historical characters but a Category:Individuals. It may be better to have the former and not the latter, just in case we include names of famous animals such as Laika. Keep any of these categories to help with the organization and navigability of names of individuals. There is already a consensus pro-keeping the category. In addition, the few pro-deletion arguments above seem based on the assumption that we shouldn't include names of individuals at all, which is not inherently true and possibly merits to be discussed further, probably outside the scope of a mere RFDO thread. --Daniel. 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Einstein and Mother Teresa are not historical characters, and this "longstanding practice" spoken of was a rules-first approach that has not, in fact, been carried out in practice. DAVilla 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Counts: 4 deletes (3 of them not boldface), 4 keeps. Mglovesfun is not counted, sounds like a weak keep, but I erred on the side of counting him as abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)