Category talk:People

message: Should we order it by family name? Streep, Meryl instead of Category:Actors and Actresses in the Meryl Streep article? I prefer first name ordering, but that doesn't seem like something an encyclopedia would do. - Jeandré, 2004-05-31t20:00z
*Yes, by family name.  More specifically, in the order discussed in Talk:List of people by name --Amillar 05:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: order by family name?

message: *The articles pilgrim and raver are not about people but about types of people.  Should these articles be removed from this category? anthony (see warning) 14:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of people

message: see also: wikipedia:categorization of people and its discussion page - maybe I was too fast in creating that new article, and the discussion should have been out here first (as suggested by user:Beland on CfD page), sorry if having caused inconvenience... --Francis Schonken 13:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for lending a hand.  Everyone should definitely follow the above link to learn more about and participate in the people-classification controversy. -- Beland 04:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of people - general discussion 

message: Now that People is a main page category (replacing Personal life=life), would it all right if we were to add a link to that category? It could go under Did You Know, currently a red link. Or it could go in place of that red link. Ancheta Wis 09:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page cat 

message: :Category:Humans is in :Category:People and vice-versa.  Since in general we are to avoid cycles in the category system, and since :Category:People is in :Category:Fundamental, it looks like the thing to do is to take :Category:People out of :Category:Humans.  I'm going to go ahead and make that change; if someone disputes it, feel free to revert and discuss. Jdavidb 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You remembered to put colons at the start of your category links except in the heading - those links work the same way. Brian Jason Drake 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fix.  Sorry about that.  I think I was cutting and pasting an edit summary from the same comment which I put on Category talk:Humans. Jdavidb (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding loop between [[:Category:People]] and [[:Category:Humans]] 

message: Category:Humans is under Category:Nature (if you go upwards through Category:Apes, you eventually get there). Shouldn't this go there too? Brian Jason Drake 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature? 

message: I would also suggest putting this into another category to reflect the fact that there are fictional people in here - Category:Fiction? Brian Jason Drake 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional people 

message: I commented out the containing Category:Philosophy for this Cat, as I cannot understand the rationale.  Please add a comment here to justify its inclusion in the Philosophy Category. True, People can be Philosophers, but not all People are Philosophers. Hence it is not a categorical statement. Ancheta Wis 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical People 

message: Since we are removing the various ways we are indexing Biographies from the browse UI's, I note that we should have:
* Lists of people
* People by nationality
* People by occupation
* People by religion
* Births by year
* Deaths by year
here in the cats.
-- Fplay 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about lists 

message: Should an individual ever be listed in this category? Shouldn't a given person always be listed in some more specific category? -- Mikeblas 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  individuals? 

message: The religion catagories are messed up.  If I want to find Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Muslims, or Bahai I have to look in the People by religion subcat.  But if you want Buddhists, Atheists, Taoists, or Satanists you need to go to People known in connection with religion or philosophy.  Saints and exorcists can be found under Religious people.  Then there's Religious leaders which are found under People by occupations (this one's probably ok, but Religious workers needs to go there too).
I think that all the subcats of people by their religion need to be merged under People by religion.  But do we want to change its name to People by belief to include atheists and agnostics?  Or possibly People by religion or philosophy so as to include most of the entries from People known in connection with religion or philosophy?  Categories that cut across religions like saints and exorcists could be sorted to the beginning or they could be given their own category by keeping Religious people?
Is this a project that needs to be done all at once, or could we proceed one category at a time?  If I don't get any comments in a week I'll start the process myself.  --JeffW 20:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best way to start the discussion is to figure out what categories need to be renamed and merged, mention the changes on the talk pages for the major categories, and then nominate them all at WP:CFD.  Then, if there is consensus, much of the process can be automated. -- Samuel Wantman 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done.  See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 1.  It isn't getting a very good reception.  --JeffW 22:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion sub-categories 

message: We have disambiguation pages for human names. We have pages that list birth/death years. We also have categories for people by birth/death year. What would you think of categorizing people by common given name? The category will be called simply "Name". Example- the category for people named Jimmy: Category:Jimmy --User:Carie 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names 

message: Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space:
  People
It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the P block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 13:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation Top 10 

message: Wondering what we can do to try to clean this category up. I was going through this earlier and noticed that there were categories of fictional people in here. For instance, :Category:Fictional kings is under :Category:kings and so therefore has fictional characters from LOTR in a super-category of :Category:People? Shouldn't it be real people in this category only? plange 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional people 

message: ... Descendants of Mayflower Passengers, with subcategories: Descendant of William Bradford, etc etc.?  Thoughts? -- Sholom 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants of Famous People? 

message: currently there is a discussion going on here at the CFDeletion and it's taken an interesting turn, regarding the fact that there are categories for people that risk being used inappropriately so the thought is to remove them... that's a weak summation, but i'm asking if anyone else can post their thoughts. -Zappernapper 11:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable traits of people... 

message: :(Cross posting from: :Category talk:American writers by state)
Who goes in each of these categories? People who write about a state? People who were born in that state? What about a person who happened to live in California for 2 years in the early 80s?
A clearly spelled out definition of who goes in these categories is definitely needed.  Someone recently added Orson Scott Card to :Category:North Carolina writers... card just happens to live thier currently, but it plays a very minor part in his life.
Anyway, some clarification would be appreciated. ---J.S  (T/C) 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems no one has posted here for quite a while. I would think the obvious as in state eg New York. Phgao 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ill defined..."American writers by state" 

message: What is the distinction between :Category:People by ethnic or national descent, :Category:People by ethnic or national origin, and :Category:People by race or ethnicity? --Paul A (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the categories, "ethnic or national origin" is: "This includes people who (or whose ancestors) immigrated to the country in the category name from a different country. In other words, these people or their ancestors were immigrants."  Descent is "This category includes articles on people who (or whose ancestors) emigrated from the country in the category name to another country. In other words, these people or their ancestors were emigrants. For the opposite, see Category:People by ethnic or national origin".  "Race or ethnicity" groups both of those and some other categories too. --Lquilter (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity, etc. 

message: biography · n. (pl. biographies) an account of someone’s life written by someone else. – DERIVATIVES biographer n. biographic adj. biographical adj. biographically adv. – ORIGIN C17: from Fr. biographie or mod. L. biographia, from med. Gk, from bios ‘life’ + -graphia ‘writing’.
I have no problems with your interpretations above and that biography really doesn't mean human biographies. But confusion will continue because most people are taught the dictionary version of Biography that I list above. And will continue to list such articles as biographies. And the bots will continue to remove the category biography from such articles.
May I suggest a category of Biography-Human with a search sub-catergory B-H-last name, first name, birth year with the birth year even if it is estimated? I am a novice with Wikipedia, but might this solve the problem? And it would be easy for computers to search. Or maybe something similar?
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: I replaced humans and ape by human nature for prevent the loops. Furthermore, you can't say that people is a subcat of homo sapiens (humans category concerns the homo sapiens field) cause homo sapiens concerns prehistory. Homo sapiens is less broad than people. Same for apes. It's a very serious subject, we have to find a solution.Zipodu (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Humans is the main category for our species, including subcategories about our biology, culture, history, etc. :Category:People is a container for all the articles on individual people. People are humans, therefore :Category:People should be a subcategory of :Category:Humans. Humans are apes, which is why :Category:Humans is ultimately a subcategory of :Category:Apes, and :Category:People (individual humans) is a subcategory of :Category:Individual apes. :Category:Human nature is a subtopic of :Category:Humans – it doesn't make sense the other way around. What loops are there? MClay1 (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

text: There is a loop with :Category:Humans through :Category:Biology through :Category:Education, which is in :Category:Human activities. They're so far removed though that it's not really an issue. All the steps are logical and removing useful parent categories just for the sake of preventing a loop would be unhelpful to navigation and counterproductive. MClay1 (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  people, apes and humans loop 

message: The redirect List of everyone has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:List of everyone]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]