On 4/26/13, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory
they are then taken out
of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone
should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist.
Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female
novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will
become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes.
This is normally the case, but there's an explicit exemption for
gender: at least in theory, single-gender categorisation (where we
have just "female" without a corresponding "male" category) should
not
be "exclusive", and people should be categorised in both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_re…
Removal from the main category should (again, an aspirational
"should") only occur when we are completely splitting it into gender
subcategories.
Yes, but if you try and explain the concept of something being in two
categories at the same time to people not familiar with Wikipedia's
categorisation system, and who are only looking at one of the
categories and getting all upset, it can be difficult. There is a
valid point that those looking at one category based on gender (let's
say female) will think that the 'main' category won't contain male and
female.
Unless the category page explicitly states at the top in the
'description' part of the page, and in a prominent fashion, that the
main category does and should contain both genders, and that the
female subcategory is a convenience when a particular area has been
studied in gender terms.
Personally, I think the de-wiki way is the better way, and the
categorisation system needs to adapt to intersection possibilities.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_intersection
That's an old proposal, but is it becoming more feasible now?
Carcharoth