- What are we going to use for people who have their own category? Such as Category:George H. W. Bush. I see there are two categories:
Both of these categories are the exact same thing. Which one do we use? Or, should we use a whole different one? When I read the title of the first one, I would never know what the purpose of that category is. The second one makes a little more sense, but i don't like the "named after" part. I suggest:
- Category:People with categories or something like that. -AMK152(talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- They were not the exact same thing five minutes ago, and they never should be.
- See Commons:Category:People by alphabet, which has subcategories named after people but also has hundreds of individuals in DEFAULTSORT order. Ours has cats named after individuals but also media that are not categories; if we bothered to fill it with articles for individuals we would have thousands of individuals and find such a category a bit unusable, but some user (possibly a bot) could get some use out of it. If in doubt, leave it alone - that's my motto.
- "Named after" is a completely accurate description. I would not be in favour of changing it unless a clearly better name could be found. Maybe "People with their own categories", but even that is ambiguous. If we had a category "Contributors living in Plimmerton", that would be my own category until a neighbour joined in! Robin Patterson 03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)