Category talk:2 female humans with 1 male human
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
 | Category:Males by activity | Move to/Rename as | Category:Male humans by activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Human males by age | Move to/Rename as | Category:Male humans by age | |
| Category:Groups of males | Move to/Rename as | Category:Groups of male humans | |
 | This CfD applies to all sub-categories of Category:Male humans. These categories are specific to male humans. Category:Male humans is the parent category name, and thus should be reflected through its sub-categories, and they should use the name "male humans" as well. | |||
 | Josh (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
- Your "by-line" isn't working, Joshbaumgartner. I've tagged parallel "female" and "adult" categories that this should also apply to. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
| Category:Females by activity | Move to/Rename as | Category:Female humans by activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category:Females by setting | Move to/Rename as | Category:Female humans by setting | |
| Category:Adults by activity | Move to/Rename as | Category:Adult humans by activity | |
| Category:Adults by setting | Move to/Rename as | Category:Adult humans by setting | |
| per comment above | |||
| Themightyquill (talk · contribs) | |||
- @Themightyquill: I've made some tweaks to {{Prop cats}} hopefully making it more clear (moving the signature to the bottom line). Thanks for identifying the additional categories, I agree that they should be handled likewise. Josh (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with specifying "humans" on all these. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree on almost all this request. In most categories, humans are designated as "people" (subdivided into "men", "women", "children"...) without using "humans" which is implicit (except for "males" and "females" which could be ambiguous with other animalia and that could be requalified, but changing "human (fe)males" to "(fe)male humans" will not solve anything; and "humans" remains a category for the gender, that will continue to include "people" for all individuals, including "men", "women", "boys", "girls" which should stay unchanged, which will remain subcategories in "(fe)male humans" still useful for generic non-personal contents on a medical perspective, excluding all "social/political/functional/births/deaths" and "young/old people" perspectives which are related to indivuals or local/functional/social/political/cultural/ethnic/religious/legal groups of individuals).
So renaming "human (fe)male" (prefered to "(fe)males" alone) to "(fe)male humans" serves no purpose, and there's no need at all to generalize it to all other subtopics. And if there's no gender distinction, we should prefer "people" for local/social/political/.../functional topics on individuals, and definitely not "humans" reserved for medical/biological topics on the human species as whole, without any distinction of "race/ethnicity/nationality/body colors" which are purely socio-political and not at all scientific). verdy_p (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)- @Themightyquill and Verdy p: I wish I hadn't created this category: it seems redundant, since Category:Men already exists. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jarble: It's not redundant. Men are adults. "Male humans" would include boys, who are not yet adults. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill and Verdy p: I wish I hadn't created this category: it seems redundant, since Category:Men already exists. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Males"(for humans) is more generic than "men" (that are male adult humans); "males" also include "boys" (for male children humans). There are several categories by age subdivided then by sex...
- Also "males" vs. "females" is not a binary division for humans (and some other species), that may also be ambisexual (biologically, when not forced by a medical act), or hermaphrodite (two genders simultaneously, or changing naturally across life depending sometimes of social biochemical interactions for insects), even if hermaphrodism is very rare in humans (generally there's a biological gender dominating, even if there are some reduced attributes of the other sex: in many countries, the dominant gender was forced by law or medical acts or families, but modern democratic countries have forbidden these forced practices, now considered exactly like amputations, i.e. definitive punishments without volunteer law violation by the amputed person).
- And "men" vs. "women" (only humans, excluding yound people that are still not binary determined) is a social classification that is refuted by transgenders (operated/treated or not: transexuality is part of the sexual identity and not sexual attraction or practices), and it is independant of the sexual identity (psychologic) or sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual/gay/lesbian, bisexual) or sexual practices with partners (asexual), social practices (single, partnered, married, polygam...). Sexuality of humans is complex! verdy_p (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: Do you prefer "human (fe)males" to "(fe)male humans" in category names? Josh (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both would be OK for me, but "Human (fe)males..." is already used in a category that would not need to be renamed. The second option allows replacing the leading "(fe)male" adjective by other adjectives (adult, young, old, African) keeping the generic "humans" name at end (also replacable by names of other species: "dogs", "horses")...
- It does not matter for me if others would prefer the other option (and anyway they are IMHO synonyms, that would merit to remain as soft-redirected categories for completeness, using a standard redirecting template tracking pages that would fall later in them, because both could be expected by users). verdy_p (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Verdy p: Do you prefer "human (fe)males" to "(fe)male humans" in category names? Josh (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Themightyquill, Verdy p, and Jarble: Closed (stale discussion; consensus to apply Universality principle to match main category name in children; maintain redirects for alternates) Josh (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Groups by number should use digital numbers instead of long-form numbers in their names. Category:Groups of twenty-eight should be Category:Groups of 28. This would better match most other number-based categories and would make it possible to access with templates (one could easily categorize in [[:Category:Groups of {{{1}}}]] in a template where parameter 1 is a number. This would also be that much easier on non-English speaking users. Josh (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan in every way. Support. --Pitke (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Another argument: both spellings are allowed. However, an important argument in favor of numeric notation is accessibility for non-English speakers. Because Commons is used for all language versions of Wikipedia, and in many countries English is not spoken or not spoken well. However, the numeric notation can be more easily understood by all. Greets Triplec85 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Proceeding to make the aforementioned changes as there is no objection or further discussion at this time. Josh (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Naming of groups should be standardized as much as possible. We have a variety of different naming conventions. Groups of 10 widgets may be categorized as: "10 widgets", "Ten widgets", "Groups of 10 widgets", "Groups of widgets - 10", and a few others. Solitary items have even more various ways to be named. I propose a simple convention for objects of which there are groups to be categorized:
- Category:Groups
- Category:Groups of object
- Category:Groups of 1 object
- Category:Groups of 2 objects
- Category:Groups of 3 objects
- ...
- Category:Groups of object
Using the number '1' instead of 'one' seems better for internationalization. The object should be a countable, definable entity. Josh (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with standardizing, but one item is not a group. Maybe these categories should be named something like Category:Foo by number shown. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have a group of 1. It may sound a little odd, but nothing invalid. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." - en:Group; "1" is a number. You can absolutely have a group or set of 1. "Category:Foo by number shown" ("Category:Foo by quantity depicted" would be a bit more precise) works fine as the index category, but how do you structure the subs then? Josh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- "1 object", "2 objects", etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that could work. So something like:
- "1 object", "2 objects", etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can have a group of 1. It may sound a little odd, but nothing invalid. "A group is a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together." - en:Group; "1" is a number. You can absolutely have a group or set of 1. "Category:Foo by number shown" ("Category:Foo by quantity depicted" would be a bit more precise) works fine as the index category, but how do you structure the subs then? Josh (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: This is fine, still achieves the goal of standardizing the format and avoids the oddness of 'groups of 1'. Josh (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- On further looking into it, this version has a problem...where do you put images with a number of objects for which there is no category, such as one where the exact count is too high to matter, or is unreasonable to identify exactly. Leaving them in the 'by quantity' category would not work since such categories do not typically permit files to remain there, and to have "Category:5392 objects" seems impractical. Leaving them unsorted in the main category also seems less than optimal. Josh (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- You could either put them in the parent category "Category:Objects" (no number specified) or have a category like "Category:100+ objects". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Auntof6: As it turns out, there is Category:Many (adjective) that covers large numbers that one would not necessarily count exactly. I have no problem with Category:Many objects residing under Category:Objects by quantity. I do not think putting them in the parent category is really a good plan, because it becomes harder to sort out files that should be sorted from the main to a sub from those that are just to remain at the parent level. Josh (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- You could either put them in the parent category "Category:Objects" (no number specified) or have a category like "Category:100+ objects". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- On further looking into it, this version has a problem...where do you put images with a number of objects for which there is no category, such as one where the exact count is too high to matter, or is unreasonable to identify exactly. Leaving them in the 'by quantity' category would not work since such categories do not typically permit files to remain there, and to have "Category:5392 objects" seems impractical. Leaving them unsorted in the main category also seems less than optimal. Josh (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Closed (modified proposal; use "# object" format) Josh (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)