Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Eponymous RFC/Draft

While knowing that categories can be changed at any time (invite them not to be while under discussion), I think this is complicated enough that more examples solutions needed to illustrate the various solutions. Examples need to be more complex (real world) than the simple country category. Hmains (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some suggestions? Maybe the American politicians one (to show what it looks like when another approach is adopted)? --Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians is an example of using only articles, not cats. Category:Categories named after American politicians is a category of epon cats but there is no cat here of just articles since there are so many subcats and no documentation (as usual) of what is expected. Category:Presidents of the United States is an example of handling a parent cat that has epon cats and articles without epon cats. Hmains (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in your discussion choices, which match to which of my options?

Option 1: An article and its eponymous category should both exist in same categories. Option 2: An article with an eponymous category should only exist in its eponymous and no other category. The eponymous category will be used in all other categories. Option 3: Either the article or its eponymous category or both can exist in other categories. Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Your Option 1 is my option 1. Your Option 2 is my option 3. Your Option 3 seems to be saying that any of my options may be appropriate (depending on the circumstances, presumably). You don't seem to list my option 2 separately.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added my option 3 to this RFC as option 4 as it is certainly another option (and one that is very much in current use). I also added what I hope is a simple statement of what options 1 and 3 would necessarily result in so the results are very clear to interested parties. Hmains (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just judging from the lack of comments/input here, there sure does not seem to be much interest in this discussion, one way or another. How significant/skewed will be a RFC in this case? Hmains (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it needs more publicity. I'll mention it at CfD and various other category-related pages.--Kotniski (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as you say, not much input. I'll try advertising it as an active RFC then, and see if that gets any more reaction.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]