Category talk:Notable people

Do you have a preference between Category:Notable Kin and Category:Notable people? I think the inclusion criteria should be the same (Wikipedia is easiest), and we only need one category to do this. Notable Kin has a known meaning; Notable people is a bit more straightforward, since the "kin" doesn't fit real well in this context.--Amelia 14:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Ahh - I did not notice the existence of Category:Notable Kin when I created this category. I had heard of the "notable kin" site before, but I didn't have it in mind when creating the 'notable people' category. My first thought is to avoid use of the 'notable kin' phrase in order to avoid any confusion between WeRelate and the work of New England Historic Genealogical Society. 'Notable people' is also a generic term and doesn't imply anything about any of the people actually being related to any WeRelate contributor.
There is a related thought here, that of Sources vs. MySources when documenting facts about notable people. I took a look at the information around Person:Noah Webster (4) and his ancestors, which showed one of the sources as MySource:Norannl/History & Genealogy of the Gov. John Webster Family of Connecticut.. I don't think that this would qualify as a "mysource" because it is of general interest, not just of interest to a handful of people investigating a mundane lineage.
Summary proposals
  1. Use Category:Notable people and depopulate Category:Notable Kin in favor of 'notable people'
  2. Compose some additional text to go with Help:MySource pages#What is a MySource? and/or WeRelate:About MySources that states upfront that any source related to a 'notable person' should be a Source rather than a MySource
If you are in agreement on these two points, then one of us could take these forward on the more focused/appropriate discussion place(s) to gain a wider consensus — or we could just be bold and do these things without seeking further consensus. #1 could be done without any additional consensus as the entire category systems is still in its infancy; I'm not sure about #2, though.
--ceyockey 19:03, 29 November 2008 (EST)
I'm fine with Notable people. We can certainly do it ourselves. Such things take forever if you leave it to committee.
On the sources v. MySources, I don't think that's related to this context. That MySource you cite is frankly a better citation than all the wikipedia ones I do because they're easier. At some point, someone should redirect that MySource to the actual source page for that source; but I'm sure it's not there because someone consciously created a MySource for it, but rather because it was uploaded in a gedcom. Fixing the MySource help won't really change that. Nor do the MySource/Source rules need to have anything to do with whether a line has a notable person in it; that source would be a source regardless of who it covered because it's a family history book.--Amelia 20:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)


Topics

[add comment] [edit]

Categorization of this category [29 November 2008]

I had placed this category as a child of Category:Special Projects as I wasn't sure where else it should go. My thinking is that it could remain where it is or it could be moved to be a top-level category under Category:Browse as a distinct column of information. Other thoughts? --ceyockey 19:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)

I would defer this decision, as I think the top level categories are going away.--Amelia 20:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)
[add comment] [edit]

Who's notable [6 December 2008]

Upon further reflection ... This category is going to be gigantic if we use the Wikipedia rule. Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of entries on people who no one has heard of, but they were, say, an Olympic athlete, a member of the U.S. House, or married to a governor. I suggest that we limit directly placing people in this category to the actually famous -- household names or people who were household names at the time, i.e. Presidents and First Ladies, Kings, famous authors, a handful of politicians like Benjamin Franklin, but not everyone who's ever held public office, written a book, or inherited a noble title. Those people can go in the categories for that office, which can be linked to this page, which ends up much cleaner (same for authors, actors, athletes, nobles, etc.). I know this isn't the clearest of rules, but I think this category would be the most fun and useful if the truly notable weren't lost.--Amelia 00:09, 6 December 2008 (EST)

That distinction between "notability" and "fame" has been a perennial debate on Wikipedia that was essentially lost a couple of years ago to the "inclusionists" (people who favor including the sum total of human knowledge in scope for Wikipedia). Our solution could be to use Wikipedia's notability guideline, but with tighter rules for inclusion. (see subsection below) --ceyockey 14:46, 6 December 2008 (EST)
[add comment] [edit]

Tightening inclusion criteria [7 December 2008]

Suggestions for inclusion criteria for WeRelate (section added --ceyockey 14:46, 6 December 2008 (EST))

Note—if a person page has been included as part of a family history, the Person should not be excluded just because they do not meet the notability-based inclusion criteria below; in other words, the Primary Criterion for inclusion of a Person page on WeRelate is that the Person is included in a family history/tree. This seems obvious, but should be stated for completeness' sake.
  • people who are deceased (applying the 'exclude living people' principle)
  • people who have been the subject of (one or more below)
    • multiple national or international news reports (any nation)
    • one or more published biographies
  • people who are known for more than one event, except
    • where that single event is winning the highest of international awards (e.g. Nobel Prize, gold medal at Olympics, winning Tour de France)
    • where that single event is of singular historical significance (e.g. Signers of the American "Declaration of Independence", Participants to the "Magna Carta", Signatories to the "Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution") ceyockey 15:20, 6 December 2008 (EST)
  • immediate family members of notable people (spouse, children) ceyockey 14:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)
    note, being an immediate family member would not make the person notable by itself, i.e. this would not lead to a chain of inclusions down the generations ceyockey 14:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I think it's absolutely notable to be related to George Bush or Barack Obama -- there's no reason to exclude people who are living. Also, the biography criteria is too broad, as it will include vast numbers of early immigrants who have books along the lines of "John Smith and all his descendants". Gold medals at the Olympics is thousands of people, the vast majority of whom no one has ever heard of. And family members of notable people are not themselves notable. So I guess I still think that criteria is way too broad. How about:

  • Heads of state and their spouses. Not children, parents, or other family members.
  • Other politicians of significant note who are (most likely) household names throughout their country and have held multiple offices (i.e. Ben Franklin)
  • Artists with significant bodies of work (or equivalent for athletes).

And that's it. Everyone else gets a category that can be added here -- writers, declaration of Independence signers, governors, etc. If this category is to be useful/amusing, it should include mostly names that are either readily recognizable by the reasonably well-read, or instantly identified as such (oh, President X's wife; oh, he wrote <insert famous book here>).--Amelia 17:49, 6 December 2008 (EST)

To clarify, I'm talking about the criteria for inclusion as an article on this category page. The question of subcategories is a different one. Many people will fit into a "notable" subcategory -- as in, what they did was noticed by history, and it would be nice to see which of those people are on WeRelate -- who were not themselves notable enough to be on the main category. Some categories (presidents, monarchs) will per se mean the people in them are also on the cover page, and on the flip side, being in a subcategory like governors doesn't mean you're not also sufficiently notable for the front page (i.e. Schwartzenegger).--Amelia 10:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)
[add comment] [edit]

People included now who do not meet tightened criteria [6 December 2008]

I agree with removing Ashburner, but Prince Charles is more notable than 90% of the people that meet even my criteria.

Retrieved from "https://www.werelate.org/wiki/Category_talk:Notable_people"