Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13

Konten dalam namespace/format kategori

I have updated Category: Canadian music groups to follow the guide lines on Wikipedia: Categorization. I plan to explore Category 300: Cat Canadian music and give them this consistent format. I've tried looking at other music portals, but there is not much consistency. There is no "best practices" section in the Wikipedia article: Categorization. Please help someone! The semi-related questions are below: Argolin (talk) 20:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

When the introduction is longer than its content, there is a problem. Categories should be stand-alone with a simple introduction. All related things must be listed in the parent category and not in the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13

User page in Category

I have noticed several user pages appearing in important categories, e.g. User: Cr2pr/cybrarian on Category: India (now deleted). One only needs to edit their own user pages for this to happen. There needs to be a way to prevent the list of user pages in the article category. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:40, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have considered asking for a cleanup bot for this. The only other option is to edit the page and add ":" before the word category. If the template enters a category then you need to use {{tl}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

This happens all the time, when users copy articles to their user pages. I disliked it for a long time, but did not see a real solution. Removing categories from user pages with bots tends to be a highly contentious idea. Debresser (talk) 20:34, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why is that a debatable idea? Is there a good reason why a user's page should be in a category that is not a subcategory Category: Wikipedians? As for templates: Such templates should not add categories to the user page in the first place and the template should be changed. Svick (talk) 22:58, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

This can be unpleasant for some people because you will delete the category for a draft article that someone might write in the user's space - I can see how it can get people to stop. I think the compromise may be in order. Vegaswikian has the best idea, IMO. Ideally, if we can get the bot to add ":" before the word "Category", then the text can remain on the page but the page will not appear in the category any longer. Good Ol'factory ^(talk) 23:04, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have done this for a while as a small change. I may have a complaint during that time, but also some questions about why and then the editors do not mind when they understand what is going on. My guess is that most of this is from copying encyclopedia pages to user pages. Maybe a suggestion to this some where in the new user is welcome? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have long thought that the solution should be at a technical level, the articles in the user space should never appear in the category list in the main room. It may be very easy to do this, or very difficult. It would be a bit confusing to anyone who compiled an article checking the category, but no more than an already happening situation where, when there is no DEFAULTSORT or category type key, the user's sub-page article is first sorted by the username. Lecture (speaking) 23:47, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

There are some templates to help do this. Now if I can only remember the names. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Remember one, {{paint handler}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Template: List of Asian capitals based on regional needs added to it; has added a number of user pages to Category: Capital of Asia. postdlf ( talk ) 23:10, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Wikipedia: Report the contaminated database/Category is a list created on Tuesdays and Saturdays that compose the first 250 entries. Bots should be in charge of cleaning this up. In the meantime, I occasionally clean it manually using & lt; nowiki & gt; per Wikipedia: USER # Categories.2C_templates.2C_and_redirects. A way to prevent such cleanup is even required is to have an article creation guide including ":" automatically. - Ã, MrDolomiteÃ, oÃ, Talk 14:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this should be pretty easy to do. I will consider it and maybe submit a botreq within a few days. - xeno ^talk <19:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

The solution & lt; nowiki & gt; is bad enough and relatively invasive. Adding a colon in front of the category is definitely more elegant. That's what I propose to do by bots. Debresser (talk) 18:42, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Remember too that many templates automatically insert articles into categories. So use the & lt; nowiki & gt; is faster by hand, and it may be easier to apply bots. - Ã, MrDolomiteÃ, oÃ, Talk 22:58, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Bots can not easily recognize whether templates add categories or not. But adding point two into categories is pretty easy. Svick (talk) 23:28, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

What happens to the function of number of articles in a category?

On a related note, I've been thinking of nominating US parent-level categories such as Category: Cities in the United States or Category: Villages in the United States for deletion. Because what constitutes a city or a village depends entirely on the definition of local law, this grouping is only based on a common name, so that the "city" which is a second-tier city in some countries is categorized not by the "village" which is the second city. municipalities in other countries, but "cities" which are third-tier municipalities in those with three distinct classes. Other contents in Category: Cities in the United States, such as ghost towns and city-category companies, indicate that terms at that level are only used generally. The only substantive groupings are by country (for example, Category: Villages in Ohio), which are already structured in the proper parent category that group similarly shared shared places at the national level, such as Category: Cities in the United States or Category: Communities unrelated in the United States. I am more forgiving of the Categories in the United States, because in each states "city" is the highest-level municipality (most of the population, the greatest law-making ability, whatever) or only municipalities in states that do not have many classes. But the parents of "town" and "village" should be removed. There is a dispute? postdlf ( talk ) 22:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Planned, proposed , future, future, development, concept, pipe dreams, and other potential categories of goods

We have discussed renaming on this for a while and when I remember the results vary from time to time. I think that recent decisions tend toward the planned or proposed direction. Are any of those terms preferred? If so, in what case? If there is something proposed it may remain that way and never advance to the planned and then the construction and the existence. I think the current consensus is that we do not need categories for every step along the way. But once the project is completed, it should be removed from the planning category and placed in different categories. Also there is a mention of WP: CRYSTAL, but I do not see it as concern in this category because it applies to articles. If they fail in the test then the article does not exist and there is no categorization problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

src: www.psy.gla.ac.uk

categorization according to V & amp; RS

How strict is categorization need to comply with article compliance with Verifiability policy? BearcatÃ, (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs) has moved two articles (Nathalie Paulding and Joe Torres) out of " Category: * actors " and to " Category: American * actors "(diff and diff), but no articles have a reliable source for US citizenship of their subjects. Thus, the categorization says they are of a certain nationality, but the article does not affirm or prove such a claim.

Full disclosure, Bearcat and I have twice discussed this (or related) in the past, both are archived here and here. - pd_THOR ^{| =/\ =} | 10:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Bearcat on this issue; citizenship is usually not a controversial issue, at least in this context. I do not think it is necessary OR assume that a person is a citizen in the country where they live and work. Absent reason to believe it is more complicated, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Nathalie Paulding's article mentions no other country than the US, where it grew big (at least IMDB claims he was born in FL) and has worked exclusively. Joe Torres lacks any detail , but only lists two credits for him, both for American production. Maybe they are both Icelanders, but no information available would support other conclusions but Americans for them. postdlf ( talk ) 13:55, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

is there a tool to get all the pages under the category?

such as how to get a list of all the pages in the Category: Any cocktails and subcategories below them too? I realize that the category is not a tree, or even an acyclic graph is directed, so its depth should be limited to some point. --Rajah (talk) 02:18, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

No, but it should be there. It does not make sense to get readers to compose their own data. --Codrdan (talk) 04:23, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CatScan can do this. The result of your example is [2]. Svick (talk) 12:34, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

There is another version of CatScan, which is also linked to WP: CatScan, which has several different options. The negative category is very useful. The result is here Tassedethe (talk) 13:06, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

WP: AWB can do this too. - xeno ^talk 13:11, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the two hints. CatScan looks great and I'll look into AWB, even though I'm not under Windows normally. --Rajah (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Edit request from Dib492, June 14, 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

( Double underline and bold are added below so that it can identify relevant/inappropriate/replacement text.)

Problems

Wikipedia: Categorization # Sort_keys claim (second paragraph) it

"Because the software uses ASCII instead of the correct alphabetical order , it is important that the sequence key be capitalized consistently."

but Help: Category # Sort_order states (first paragraph) it

"The system uses a pseudo-alphabetical sequence, or rather Unicode for , for pages in categories."

Proposed solution

Replace ASCII with Unicode . I also think it is necessary to add a link to the help page.

So, please change the first sentence of Wikipedia's second paragraph: Categorize # Sort_keys to something like:

"Since the software uses Unicode instead of the correct alphabetical order (see details) , it is important that the sort key be capitalized in consistent. "

(I'll fix it myself, but since I just registered, first I'll have to wait a few more days and maybe make some more edits until I become 'autoconfirmed'.)

dib492 (talk) 18:01, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Finish Favonian (talk) 22:51, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Category discussion

I would like to find broad input on the category that is being debated, but it seems that some users are watching the talk page and previous discussions are limited to a small group of users. Where is the best place for it? Exploding Boy (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the discussion is about deleting, merging or renaming them, then there is Wikipedia: Category for discussion. If that's something else, the related WikiProject talk page is probably the best place. And of course, if you want to do something you think is not controversial and there is no object, then just do it. Svick (talk) 18:05, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

src: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Category: North American desert flora

Can someone see the parents of the Category: North American desert flora? I think most of them are really subcategories and not the parent category. I'm not positive though. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is fine. Every parent 'US category country is for a country that is not all desert countries. And the North American desert is not a single contiguous area, but several different areas. On the other hand, flora is not the same for every desert and different flora in different countries, I think, so Category: North American desert flora probably should have no relation to the category of US country at all. Hmains (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

src: www.thomasclausen.net

Jewish Issues

Quick question Category: rabbi parents are

Categories
• : Jewish Rev.
• Category: Jewish Education
• Category: Jewish religious work
• Category: Jewish religious leader

Should this be some DAB'd how well changed to category: Jewish Priest or maybe Category: Jewish (religion) priest

The
• Category: The Jews by occupation, should it be removed, just because a person is a Rabbi does not mean they are ethnically Jewish. Gnevin (talk) 14:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand this question. What's wrong with this as a cat cat? Also, to become a rabbi you must become a Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

View Wikipedia: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_21 # Category: Jewish_clergy. You must be a Gentile (Religion) Gentile (Ethnoreligious) Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that turning these four categories from "Jew" into "Judaism" makes perfect sense, even without the (rather sad) example of a non-Jewish rabbi. Debresser (talk) 11:19, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

• "Reverend Judaism" is not grammatically correct. The pastor is a noun, and the adjective Jew is an adjective. To do it right, you have to call it something like "Jewish Priest". But I think the "Jewish priest" is good, and it is in line with the categories of all other religions. -shirulashem ^(talk) 17:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is very messy and not in line with the others. When you say Jewish you mean Jewish (Religion) or Jewish (Etnoreligius group) Gnevin (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I know someone who was born Irish, brought up Catholic, moved to Judaism, and was ordained as a rabbi. I'm sure he considers himself a Jewish rabbi (also an Irish-American rabbi). In this context the religious meaning of the word "Jew" is clear. I will also affirm that many Jews with a choice accepted as ethnic Jews with many birth Jews - ethnoreligious is not the same as race. - No comments yet signed by Ricardianman (talk o contribs) 18:06, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

src: i.stack.imgur.com

Punctuation in the order button

What is the "right" way to treat punctuation in the title of articles related to sorting? WP: SORTKEY did not explain it, but my guess is punctuation stripped with a sorter key, e.g. for UFC Fight Night: Diaz vs Guillard, proper sorting key is Ufc Fight Night Diaz vs Guillard . Comment GregorB (talk) 18:39, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so (although technically it might have to be "Vs" rather than "vs", unless "vs" is used in another appropriate key - the most important is consistent in the category). Although there are times when punctuation is is used in sequence keys - I think about the commas we enter in the key sequences for people (eg "Washington, George").-- Kotniski (talk) 09: 11 , July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's "Vs", my error - no exceptions are meant here. Regardless of the "Washington, George" example, where punctuation is introduced rather than preserved, there must be instances where the original punctuation should be (partially) preserved, but I can not think of it at the moment, and I would say stripping OK as a general rule. GregorB (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Race

Continued from Wikipedia_talk: Categorization/Ethnicity, _gender, _religion_and_sexuality/Archive_1 # Race (original text by User: Radiant! or User: Samuel Wantman).

It mainly appears for the African-American category, sometimes called the Blacks (and, of course, uniform naming may be better). This problem seems to be mostly centered in America - indeed, you barely hear about "Indian-European" or "African-Asian".

However, you hear about "asians British people", "French Morrokans", etc. Europe is not a country.

" African-Americans, sometimes called Blacks instead! " Some people are mixing blacks and Africans-Sowadan, but that is the wrong point of view WP should not obey. There are actually three out of four "black" and/or "African" types of people:

• people who have blacks (who do not need to have a direct or indirect relationship with Africa)
• people labeled "black" but black arenot (eg Obama)
• Africans or whose ancestors are Africans (these people are not always black, nor labeled "black")
• I do not know to what extent people called "African-Americans" or "Africans-elsewhere" fall into the previous category.

If we have an article about an association intended for blacks, we should categorize it in the category of "black people", not in the "Africans-Somewhere" category, unless we have evidence that this association is actually only interested in Africans-Somewhere. Apokrif (talk) 10:54, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the terminology used by a reliable secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

src: www.asist.org

Eponymous category - useful or not?

View Wikipedia: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_12 # Category: Eponymous_categories for interesting discussions. - _{Piotr Konieczny aka Proconsul Piotrus | talk} 16:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Eponymous topics and categories: confusion due to poor explanations

A misguided call to remove the eponymous category indicates that they are not adequately described in this guide page. The first source of confusion is the term "topic category" and "category defined". Categories are defined by definition, so "override categories" are redundant. Topic categories, on the other hand, are really topics, or a collection of articles on a topic, so they are mis-written or misclassified. If we want to be really literal, either the topic category should be called "topic" rather than "category", or any topic category X should really be called "things related to X" instead of just "X". I know this is clear to people who watch this page or take the time to think about the subject, but obviously some others are confused. "Things related to X" seems to make me wordy, so my tendency is to create a "topic" page class in WP software, or, because it may be too difficult, at least explain the difference between the topics and categories more clearly. Either way, they should be called "topics" and "categories" instead of "topic categories" and "set categories".

All the categories are really topics, so the whole discussion about deleting them is stupid, but we can help eliminate the confusion by improving our explanation in these guidelines. The category section of Eponymous (WP: EPON) should say something like "Some subjects are important enough so that articles are written about subject matter as well as about the subject itself. --Codrdan (talk) 20:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

As we said before, we can not change the definition of "category" - it's in the software and everyone uses it. We may be able to improve the definition of different types of categories, although I can not really see how we can make it clearer than it already is. - Kotniski (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But not all categories with subcategories are actually "subject important enough that articles are written about matters relating to the subject as well as about the subject itself." ? - _{Piotr Konieczny aka Proconsul Piotrus | talk} 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I recommend is about articles, not categories. I think many people use words like "topic" and "category" differently. By "topic" I mean "category" or "topic category". The point is to explain why an eponymous cat should be separate from the parent cat article. I take back what I said about terminology. I think that "topic category" and "category defined" can be tolerated if many people use "categories" to include aggregates and topics. But the naming convention is still confusing, so I think we should at least help people when they misinterpret it. --Codrdan (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I show a parent category?

I created two categories, "Bibliography Database in Computer Science" and "Bibliography Database in Engineering". This should be reacted as a child of the "Bibliographic database", but I'm not sure how to do that. I took a quick look at Wikipedia: FAQ/Categorization and Wikipedia: Categorization but overwhelmed, sorry! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:01, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Add "[[Category: Bibliographic Database]]" to the bottom of each page. Instructions are in Help: Category # Puts pages in categories. --Codrdan (talk) 20:43, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Strange, I just think it's for articles, not for category too. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category: Establishment by country

I have created a new hierarchy to accompany Category: Company by year. I believe this is the most useful hierarchy, and I began to popularize it, first preparing the deep infrastructure. I would appreciate some colleagues who have been researching my work so far to see if there is any correction to be made that can be easily applied at this early stage. __meco (talk) 12:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

"Company" seems a rather ambiguous term to use and I'm not sure many editors will understand its purpose. I also do not see how this is not a doubling of categories in a better category, a more specific category that already includes this, for example, Category: Organization established in 1977, which is a clear category in its purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you peruse this hierarchy a little further, you may see clearly how it fits together well without overlap. Comparing Categories: 1977 companies in the United States with Category: Organizations established in 1977 should reveal that a person is centered on where company establishment takes place, others on what is being formed. It is an entirely independent hierarchy that only intersects its low-level parent. Category: Events. Your statement that "Company" is an ambiguous term that fails to realize that before this hierarchy is perfected, we have a simple hierarchy. Category: Establishment by year. In fact we have had the original hierarchy on Wikipedia for over 5 years, and have undergone several developments, so that people will get used to it and what it does now.

That has been in existence for 5 years there is no indication of whether the community understands it or not. This is a vague term. Otherwise, you will not see cases like the current edit war in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, or a quick removal tag added to Category: 1977 companies in the United States. Instead of creating another mammoth category as you have done, with a little thought, creating some specific categories like Category: The United States Organization established in 1977 (or something along those lines) will achieve your goals without making a million articles single. category. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the names are awkward and there is obviously no consensus to make these cats.-- _speak 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As you know it's been more than three weeks since I told this page about the creation of this hierarchy, and I can tell you that the problem with it in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the only place where one failed to accept or understand it. Even your latest suggestion that I should start by making the more subtle junction categories reveals that you have failed critically to understand the reality and basic properties of the problem. __meco (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic reality is that it is unnecessary and obviously not acceptable. Keep trying and forcing it will only keep you blocked on other wikis.-- _talk 16 : 18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category for maintenance category

Should Category: Articles that contain non-English language text are in the category. I have been told by the administrator that it is forbidden to use {{uncat}} (here and here), so if it should be in the category - how to mark it? Christian75 (talk) 11:32, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do not think Bearcat says "Forbidden" only that category already in Category: Hidden category, but I also put it into Category: Wikipedia Maintenance where one might find it. RichÃ, Farmbrough , 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

{{verylarge}} and {{cleancat}}

FYI, Template: VerylargeÃ, (edit | talk | history | links | watch | log) and Template: CleancatÃ, (edit | conversation | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:01, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Am I using a category redirection template or something else?

I created Category: Chain restaurants in the Philippines and want to move all the content in Category: Restaurants in the Philippines into it because they are all chains. What tools are available to help me do this? Can I use the {{Category redirect}} template, is there a better tool, or do I have to do it manually one by one? Lambanog (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Category redirect}} is obviously not for cat parents, and I've never heard of any special tools to change it. --Coder Dan (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three ways to achieve what you describe yourself:

1. You can manually edit each article to change categories, perhaps by using tools like HotCat, which allow faster addition, deletion and category changes.
2. You can use AutoWikiBrowser software (to be downloaded), which has the functionality for deletion and substitution of semi-automatic categories.
3. You can nominate categories for merging and, if there is consensus in the discussion to join, the bots will automatically apply the results once posted here. After the categories are merged and deleted, you can recreate them as a parent category.

Of course, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you can always ask someone to do it. I moved articles using HotCat, except Triple V (the company that owns has restaurant chain) and Food in the Philippines (may have to be diverted to Filipino cuisine). Cheers, - Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:45, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your information and your help Black Falcon! Lambanog (talk) 03:19, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nice to help! Happy editing, - Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Gently redirected categories

This guideline clearly shows the transfer of one page category to another must be achieved using {{category redirect}} template and not via standard (default) redirects. What happens, from a technical point of view, when {{category redirect}} is used in conjunction with a hard transition, and what action is right when someone faces such a situation? For an example, see Category: German navigation templates. Thanks, - Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:29, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ping. - Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

African American Category

Continue discussion from here but face to face with African-American issues. If it is determined that the person is an American and the accompanying picture is an "American Black" is this sufficient to establish that an African-American category is justified? For example, see Kevin Durant's article, is he an African American basketball player even though there is no source in the article that makes that specific claim (what I know)? It is rather difficult to find a source that traces the ancestors of blacks to Africa. Many sources assume that a person like Durant (who grew up in an area that is 97% African-American) is African American but without providing evidence for the claim that the sources are useless in this context. I guess what I am asking is there any room for common sense here? SQGibbon (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In a word, no. Perhaps Kevin Durant is a Hispanic descendant; perhaps he was of Scandinavian descent. How do we really know anything here? Resources. If something can not be sourced, I do not think it has a place on Wikipedia. Kevin Durant may be African American, but may not be good enough, especially with BLP. Some editors add categories by last name, some use pictures and some are just their perceptions. In my opinion, all this is original research; this is why I have removed the ethnic category from the article for at least a year.-- TM 19:22, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, but there is no need to track one's ancestors back to Africa to become an African American. This is a matter of self-identification. Did the person call themselves African Americans? What is a reliable source? In my opinion, that's enough.-- TM 19:31, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Durant was born in America (according to the source in the article) and African American. It is not by name or "just" a perception. He is African American, unlikely African American, is an African American. This is obviously a matter of common sense. If there is any chance that he (and other African American basketball players you removed from that category) are not African Americans we will not discuss this. The fact is very clear that he is an African-American person who is the only way to even make your argument, you need to find a reliable source who doubts the claim. SQGibbon (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. He was born in the US and we have a source for it. We have no proof of his inheritance. Therefore, we may not include statements, categories or anything in an article that can not be confirmed by the source. There is no assumption of truth on Wikipedia. The only way to enter something when challenged is to prove it.-- TM 20:52, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

(conflict eds) Are you challenging that he is African American? Do you think it is possible that someone will seriously challenge that he is African American? Not every fact is trivial and obviously clear about someone needing to have a source. If I can not find a trusted source who claims that Durant is male, does that mean we can not make that claim? After all, you and I get nothing in this, let's see what others say. SQGibbon (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you another example: What if I say Kevin Durant is a Puerto Rican heritage. Now, I can say it's just common sense and everyone knows it, but you do not think so, so you challenge me to prove it. Should I include the Puerto Rican category in the article? The responsibility is not on the editor that removes the prohibited content, it is in the editor that tries to include the content to prove it.-- TM 20:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- I think you both upped the points of interest, but I'm sure that the source is needed. While it is entirely true that "not every fact is trivial and clearly evident" in an article needs to be associated with the source, such facts must still be linked can .

"All material in the Wikipedia article should be attributed to a reliable publishable source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything needs to be really attributed."

-Wikipedia: Verifiability (version)

For a living person, in particular, the requirement to justify categorization with a reliable source is more explicit.

"Category names do not carry a disclaimer or modifier, so the case for each category should be made clear by the text of articles and trusted sources."

-Wikipedia: Biography of living people, 'Categories, list and navigation templates' (version)

Mengapa kita membutuhkan kategori Amerika Afrika lainnya? - T HE F OUNDERS Saya NTENT ^PRAISE _{KARYA BAIK} 18:22, 21 Oktober 2010 (UTC)

Link ke Kepulauan dari Maine serta Kepulauan dari Waldo County, atau hanya Islands of Waldo County

A question has arisen as to whether articles about the Maine Islands, such as Sears Island should be linked only to county-by-county categories, in this case subcategories Category: Waldo County, Maine, or links in addition to the more general category Category: Maine Islands?

Pro : Some editors feel that this should be one of the "exceptions to the general rule that pages are not placed in categories and subcategories." They feel the reader will refuse on the island to find one county at a time. People regard the Maine Islands as a group. Carl Little's book is called Art of the Maine Islands ; The Island Institute in Rockland deals with "island communities off the coast of Maine", as well as the Seacoat Maine Mission in Bar Harbor that deals with "coastal and island communities;" there is a trail of Maine Island "chain 375 miles over 180 island beaches" for kayaking, and so on. People do not think of island county by the county. And it may seem a daunting task to know which areas to look for to find the right one, or to get their list all (180? County by county?). Not that a more specific area category without its use; It's just not supposed to be a good situation, but rather - both. ElijahBosley ^(talk?) 21:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Con : Includes all of Maine islands in one category, which will be hundreds if everything is created, just counter-productive for process categorization. The list is a much more useful tool for those looking for all islands. This can include more information than a category can. Such lists have already been created for cities and other places.-- TM 06:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia