Should categories be renamed and redirected (restructured) in such a way that the new structure changes the content?

+9 votes
91 views

Should categories be renamed and redirected (restructured) in such a way that the new structure changes the content of the original category or categories, over the objections of WikiTree members who are using the original category or categories in the manner they were created?

This is pertinent to what is happening to the Veteran categories, and possibly others I am not aware of.

 

in Policy and Style by John Beardsley G2G6 Mach 3 (37k points)

1 Answer

+3 votes
John,

Would it be possible to give an example?  

Thank you.
by Philip Smith G2G6 Pilot (270k points)
Changing US Army Veterans to US Army with sub-categories below broken down into Army Units down to regimental size. Or World War II Veterans changed to World War II with sub-categories broken down by nations, then military branch, then units down to regimental size.

Basically we are losing the ability to create groups sorted by the keyword Veterans. To many this might seem unimportant, and some may think having groups sorted by military group is "close enough" to make Veteran categories unnecessary. I think they are necessary, and I do not think it is close enough.

If you disagree with me, fine, say so.

If you agree with me, fine, say so.

It would be nice to hear reasons for your choices, but that is up to you . . . the idea is to have the public discussion I feel did not happened before these changes started to be made.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree.  So just for my own knowledge while appreciating your obvious frustration:

For example, let's say, my father served in WW2.  He was in Unit xxxx what is the advantage of having his profile reside in Veterans, Unit xxxx,  and in also in a different part of the category tree called Unit xxxx without veteran in the category name?  It is obvious since there are no longer any active members of Unit xxxx for WW2 he is a veteran.  Why do we need another branch of the category tree with the term "veteran" in it?  

Why does removing the "veteran" categories and just changing the name to the plain unit # change the content?  

Is this part of a project?  If so, how do other project members feel?

I know this is frustrating when you see work you have done dismantled.  But you should let us know what you think the advantages are for keeping it the way it is before we can agree/disagree with you.  We need a list of reasons why it is important to keep the word "veterans" in the category name.  You obviously think it adds some usefulness.  We might agree with you if we knew what that usefulness is.

I think we all admire and applaud anyone (you) who is willing to devote time to figuring out some organization for the military categories.  They are VERY confusing to a lay person and much previous discussion on Wikitree has dealt with the problems in how to categorize them.  

I just need more information to discuss it with you.  

Hang in there!

gail

 

 

 

Breaking down by military unit recognizes the units. Breaking down by Veteran recognizes the person. That may seem like a subtle difference to some but it is not.
I can appreciate the difference.

How do you set up a category tree by person?  

gail

Never mind the answering me.  I have found this which explains your complaint:

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/226372/categories-containing-veterans-eliminated-military-categories

I'm sorry that you feel that there has been a lack of communication before an action was taken on work that you did that had importance.  

It is not always easy when working to help clean up categories (especially something as complex as military categories) to see who is actually currently using those categories.   Hundreds (probably thousands) of categories have been created over the years that don't fit in well with any sort of category structure so it is understandable to me that those people attempting to clean up the military category would have in the process of their work removed an entire branch to make it fit in the category tree.  Thousands of poorly named categories were made and many were abandoned after they were made.  

You have explained yourself very clearly about your reasons for the naming you had done and how that changes the content.  It seems that you feel that you were not given an opportunity for input before the removal of these Veteran Categories was done.  If that this true than that is failing on the part of communication somewhere along the line.  When there is a failure of communication that is bad for wikitree.  

Related questions

+9 votes
3 answers
188 views asked Mar 17, 2015 in Policy and Style by Elizabeth Winter G2G6 Mach 7 (70.7k points)
+11 votes
1 answer
+15 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
2 answers
108 views asked Mar 14, 2017 in WikiTree Help by Earl Smothers G2G Crew (800 points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...