Clarification pls: changes to ANZAC categories and templates

Question

There’s a discussion in the Wikitree in Australia Facebook group at the moment around edits that have been made to ANZAC profiles we look after - turns out we’re all using the ANZAC template according to the instructions, with the wars written out in the normal Australian usage: World War One and World War Two.

The categories that the template points to have been set as not in use and waiting for the edit bot e.g. Anzacs, World War One and it’s looks like the template is being hand-changed on some profiles to point to Anzacs, World War I. The instructions on the template pages haven’t been changed though.

Is this a decision by the ANZAC project or another group? If the template is changing, could we get clarification about the wording that should be used please?

Comments

It'd be nice if we stayed Australian in terminology as well.  We normally use "First World War", "the Great War", or "World War One".  It's not normally an Australian thing to use World War I unless we use the initialism WWI.

Also, my grandfather, his brothers and his cousin all signed up to the Australian Imperial Force, NOT 1st Australian Imperial Force, yet profiles have been changed to the latter without so much as a word.

I guess some of us are puzzled and frustrated.

---

well now I have seen things like this happen and I see how upsetting it is to those who have profiles that are affected (effected?)

When changes are decided on and are beginning to be implemented there ought to be announcements made so that people know or they are being made to feel they have been doing something wrong - that is not at all cool - they may have worked to learn how it was done and now there is a whole new thing - LET FOLKS KNOW first - we have a big courtesy thing here and it is really nice but - this is the type of thing that really makes folks feel hurt and then maybe mad and they might quit - we do not want folks leaving

---

Navarro, sometimes changes get made without anyone being aware of it. There are no notifications on category changes. We have a category changes feed but we do not monitor it 24/7, nor do we have the capacity to do so. As a categorization leader, I do scan it a few times a day, but I've only begun to do so in the last few weeks. With thousands of category changes per week, it's a bit much to ask.

---

oh I see - well I sure do admire that work as categories needed a resort and I am glad it is going well but I just hope we do not drive anyone off with sudden changes - and if some are found to have upset folks there ought to be explanation from those who did change it as to why it is better so those it hits will be more ready to adapt to it - change can be so hard on people sometimes

---

Navarro, it's only categories. Profiles, other than the categories, are untouched. Categories can be sorted out and messes can be fixed. It will just take some time and collaboration.

Anyone can create categories and anyone with the knowledge of the templates can change categories (rename/merge/delete). We do have a sort of fail safe because categories with a certain number of profiles attached need to have categorization project confirmation in order to proceed, which is why these were stalled.

---

Dang that is my weak spot really - have yet to get the hang of categories but I am trying more often so it will come

Answer 1

I have no idea why this is happening. I've looked at all of those and the original change was done by someone who is not part of the Cat. project any longer. It may have been due to ANZAC being in all caps, but I really have no idea. I can undo the renames that are currently held up due to numbers of profiles that would need editing.

There are a bunch of AIF categories that are misnamed and DO need to be changed because they include a "/" slash character in the name, which cannot be used in a category name.

Let me reverse these changes, then please contact M&W and Anzacs projects to figure out what else needs to be done.

Comments

Properly ANZAC should be capitalised.  It's an initialism/acronym.  You don't write Australia and new zealand army corps, so it shouldn't be Anzac.  (I'm old school and frequently a pedant, which can annoy people; but my Grands were ANZACs, not Anzacs.)

---

Ok, so that's also going to have to be changed.

Answer 2

Does this look right now?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Anzacs%2C_World_War_One

Comments

Yes, thanks for that Natalie.

---

I see two more...so hang in there and I'll see what needs to be changed.

---

There’s also the new category that it was redirecting to: Anzacs, World War I  

---

Which one is that?

---

It's a mess now..there are 584 profiles attached to [[Category:Anzacs, World War I]].

---

I posted to our Cat. project's google group and hopefully I'll get input from concerned parties in M&W and ANZAC. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

---

Natalie: thank you so much.  It is much appreciated.  <3 :)

Answer 3

Just remembered this wasn't answered.

It was me (everyone already knows that though). 
As a New Zealander, i have never seen either World War referred to as World War One and Two, instead with the Roman numeral

The funny thing is there was a post months before my actions, and if a unified category structure is something WikiTree is concerned about, then surely someone should have reacted then...

That aside, the biggest inaccuracy was regarding the category for the Second Boer War. The unit never existed back then! And yet...