Category talk:Serena Williams
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Let's not add the category and create the snowball problem. Women's category is too vague and isn't really meaningful. What do we want next, adding the category to every article mentioning a person?
acagastya PING ME! 07:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)- When one article category (such as CAT:Serena Williams) belongs to another article category (such as CAT:Tennis), it is generally understood as either a suggestion that articles in the one category should considered for addition to the other, or, in some cases, as an effective mandate that they should be added to the other. (Whether it's a suggestion or a mandate depends on the categories involved.) I agree, we don't want to end up adding to every article in which one of the principals is a woman; besides being a staggering amount of work, it would not result in a useful CAT:Women.
We are going to have to — in our copious free time — study the entire collection of articles that now belong to CAT:Women, understand what they were selected for, and decide what is best to be done with them. Perhaps they will be redistributed to other existing category, either existing or perhaps also to one or more new ones we create; it depends on what we find when we study them. --Pi zero (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- When one article category (such as CAT:Serena Williams) belongs to another article category (such as CAT:Tennis), it is generally understood as either a suggestion that articles in the one category should considered for addition to the other, or, in some cases, as an effective mandate that they should be added to the other. (Whether it's a suggestion or a mandate depends on the categories involved.) I agree, we don't want to end up adding to every article in which one of the principals is a woman; besides being a staggering amount of work, it would not result in a useful CAT:Women.