Category talk:Human
|
|
Title of Category
Shouldn't this be titled "Humanities"? -- Beland 07:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
On further consideration, Category:Humanities and art should probably be renamed to Humanities. What this section really wants to be is the unity of Humanities and Social Sciences, which I'm not sure is terribly useful, unless there's an alternate ontology someone is thinking of which doesn't break down neatly into academic disciplines. -- Beland 07:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This
sectioncategory should be titled "Humans", since Category:Apes is plural. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:20, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Purpose of Text on Cat Pages
No justification has been offered for turning this into a mini-article. The purpose of a category is to categorize, and text on the subject, other than in a specific context of clarifying what to put in the category, is out of place.
When some rational explanation appears on this talk page, of what is supposed to be accomplished by adding text (and graphic!) suitable to an article to the page Category:Human, it'll still be a mistake, but at least it'll be the subject of a disagreement.
Until then, it is simply vandalism to put it back.
--Jerzy(t) 02:45, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
- It's rapidly become a standard practice to include one or two sentences from the lead of the article in question in the category, especially when the category name matches an overview article name. (See Template talk:Categories and the category pages for other top-level pages linked from the main page, e.g. Category:Nature, Category:Technology, Category:Science etc.) I agree, there was too much from the overview. I am reinstating a trimmed version. --Lexor|Talk 08:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
categorizing this category
This category properly belongs in category:apes and not category:primates. The broader primates category contains the narrower apes category, and humans are classified as apes taxonomically. See also my note on User talk:JesseHogan. - UtherSRG 14:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)