Is there a reason?

Question

Two categories exist for the same purpose and the same profiles: Anzacs, World War I and Anzacs, World War One.  In one word, "Why?"  There are some 2,700 profiles in the latter (One) and 600 in the former (I). World War One is the better option of the two for Australia (First World War would be perfect in this imperfect world).  Could the smaller category please be merged into Anzacs, World War One? And the name then be changed to ANZACs, World War One?

My sincere apologies if this question has already been asked.

Answer 1

I would be the best one to answer this.

There was a previous g2g thread literally complaining about this. Back then, I was either neck deep in assignments or dealing with end of year examinations and didn't notice that thread (or the emails for that matter).

Because I caused it. Probably was one of my biggest blunders upon joining the Categorization Project initially. 
Every category attributed to World War I, used the Roman Numeral "I", and there was this one using the wording "One". I was confused and thought it was a literal error and begun to what I thought was correcting. I went as far as correcting the placement of the Gallipoli 1915 category, and also implemented the category system for the ANZAC units with what their composition was and additionally where they were attached to.

As it stands, this hasn't been resolved, as the first place I had seen discussion of this was in the google group and since putting my 1 cent in, *crickets*

And yes I created the category of Australia and New Zealand Army Corps

Comments

That's fine, Richard. Actually, the ANZAC Project is superfluous to Military & War Australia.  The project, and I'm part of it, incorrectly assumes that every Aussie soldier is an ANZAC, from all wars.  Your category, Australia and New Zealand Army Corps, is spot on.

---

Oh yeah, one more thing.

There was a category in the form of Anzacs, World War II...

That was also done by me.

Answer 2

From a categories standpoint, the standard is to use "World War I" which is what M&W calls it.

This was discussed before and I thought it had been settled.  I can't find the g2g discussion, but I do recall some talk about it. 

I did find this: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Category_Tree_Level_5:_World_War_I, in which it states"

1. Category: Anzacs, World War One; (rename to Anzacs, World War I)

So, that is the reference for how the categories for WWI were set up.

Yes, I agree they should be merged, but to Anzacs, World War I.

Comments

The acronym should be ANZACs, as Kenneth has stated, as it is the initial letters of five separate words that are themselves all begun with a capital letter.

Also, can we get a review on this World War I thing?  (It's a funny thing, really, but we've never called it World War I .. at least, not until maybe recently .. and maybe only this latest generation.)

---

Also, as the sub-Project is "the Great War", why not use that (instead of World War I), as Kenneth has said/asked?

---

I agree that the category should be called ANZACs, The Great War (1914-1918). This agrees with our naming conventions in that there is no World War One or World War I without a World War 2 (or Two). It is equivalent to LNAB. Essentially, in 1914 there was only The Great War, no one, hopefully, foresaw another world war. What was the war called at it's birth?

Also, ANZAC is an acronym for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) and each letter should be capitalized.

---

Melanie, I know it's all caps, but I'm lazy sometimes. If they are merged then, it should be [[Category:ANZACS, World War I]] I was focusing on the war part of the name.

I do not think it needs a review for the name of the war. M&W decided that already (see the link I provided.) It makes no sense to have different countries around the globe calling a war by several different names, and categories would be all over the place and we'd hear "I can't find where to put my great-grandfather who served in that war that took place between 1914 and 1919."

The project can have a name which differs from the category. The category is simply to group the persons from around the globe who fought/served/died in that specific war. People around the globe called it several different things, but for there to be a grouping of all who served, WikiTreers agreed on World War I through, I'm sure, a collaboration. (I wasn't around for that, but it seems logical to believe it happened that way.)

---

Actually (to be really picky) it's ANZAC or ANZACs, never ANZACS.

Lucy's point is something that should be considered as, despite "different countries around the globe calling a war by several different names", there WAS no "world war one" at the time of it.  It was the Great War, the World War, the war to end all wars, but never world war one (or I) until AFTER the second "world" war began.

In naming it World War I in that time frame, we are re-writing history.

---

Ask M&W, please. Juha and Pip would be the ones to go to.

---

I thought that's what Kenneth was doing.  (Tagged with military_and_war categorization and anzacs.)

I was just supporting his request / viewpoint.

---

Lucy's point is something that should be considered as, despite "different countries around the globe calling a war by several different names", there WAS no "world war one" at the time of it.  It was the Great War, the World War, the war to end all wars, but never world war one (or I) until AFTER the second "world" war began.

In naming it World War I in that time frame, we are re-writing history.

Yes, we strive to "use their conventions instead of ours"; however, this is not always possible or practical. We have to remember that categories exist for our own organizational and navigational purposes. If the people we're trying to group would have used different names for the same thing, this will ultimately lead to confusion and fall outside the intended purpose of categories to begin with (which is to group like profiles together).

The information Natalie provided shows that the Military and War Project chose to use "World War I" as the category designation when they went through with their proposal all those years ago, and Natalie's comments reflect that as the Co-Leaders of the Categorization project, we will help to maintain those categories to the approved naming conventions.

Obviously, if you feel it should be changed, you can always make that suggestion. I am sure that the M&W project would be more than willing to collaborate with you on it.

---

As I said .. I thought that's what Kenneth was doing.

I guess we'll need to wait for his daytime to cycle round again, as it's early morning tomorrow for him right now and, hopefully, he's getting some sleep.

---

Yes, and the tag is also for categorization and australia and anzacs, so he was inviting input from all of those.

So, we wait for the input from the sleeping or otherwise occupied persons.

---

Thanks for your comments everyone. Yes, I am still awake (it is 2:55am).  Been reading a book for a change.  No sleep again tonight by the looks of it. The primary aim of the post is to merge these two categories.  It appears that a merge has been approved but nothing further has happened.  I hate stalemates.  Am I allowed to initiate the merge?  Does a category leader do so.  If so, who?  Let's make it 'ANZACs, World War I' and leave the preferred name for another discussion.

---

Sounds good to me, Ken, but we need to wait for M&W to chime in.

Looks like both of the categories you originally mentioned would be renamed to [[Category:ANZACs, World War I]]. This should only happen once, since there are over 1000 profiles.

Also, there are probably implications with the ANZAC sticker.

---

GO TO BED .. before your wife has a fit. 

---

We should also consider that the template is most likely the primary culprit for this duplication, since it adds the "World War One" category to profiles. If the ANZAC Project agrees, the template can be changed to reflect "World War I" which will resolve most issues almost immediately.

---

I think you've nailed it, Steven.  The template is causing the duplicate name.

Answer 3

The Military and War categorization is a mess at the moment, mainly because no one has been following the creation of new categories. We need to get a team together, with deep insight in military hierarchy and preferably members from around the world, to keep an eye on the category structure and correct what is wrong. We also need to review what parts of the old category structure do need to be brought to date with the WikiTree categorization guidelines.

I concur that it should read ANZACs, but most of the early documentation seems to use Anzacs. This would also need a review and decision on how to write the acrynom.

The third problem is that all those profiles under Anzacs, World War I and One should not be there. The landing level for profiles should be a smaller unit, preferably regiment or battalion. I know there used to be a good reason to do it this way, but it defies the purpose of a category if there are too many profiles in it.

How many of you know what AIF stands for? We really should not use abbreviations in category names as it can be confusing in an international environment.

I haven't discussed this with my co leader Pip yet, but we will make a move after the member check-ins are done.

Comments

I agree with not using too many abbreviations and/or acronyms. I've been working on renaming categories and my eyes glaze over when I don't really know what I am looking at.

---

ANZAC is an extremely well-known acronym - in my part of the world at least. Personally, I wouldn’t put an -s on the end, because that is already stated in C which is Corps. (Then you get corpses which is somewhat ironic!) You’re right about getting help from the people who know. Unfortunately acronyms are here to stay because that how the military does it. I see US ones I haven’t got a clue about and sometimes you just have to search them up, sadly. I can say that as someone who was once in 2 GH, NZAMC.

---

How many of you know what AIF stands for? We really should not use abbreviations in category names as it can be confusing in an international environment.
answered by Juha Soini

.

.

For the record .. Australian Imperial Force.

NOT 1st Australian Imperial Force.

NOT Australian Imperial Forces.

It may have been a "subset" of the Australian Military Forces, but that's because there were military forces associated with the new states.  It may have LATER been re-designated as the 1st AIF, but for the Great war, it was not.

Source:

---

Juha, all (or most of) the profiles under these two ANZACs categories are included under regiments and battalions within the normal M&W categorisation.  These are in addition.  No units are attached to these two categories which, I gather, are intended to just list every Aussie soldier with a WT profile.

---

I thought it was agreed the aussies use Anzacs, World War Two not II. The same for Anzacs, World War One.

---

Tess, the ANZAC Project is incorrect to apply ANZACs to every war.  Australian soldiers are Diggers, not ANZACs.  That's a modern-day media misrepresentation and should not be brought into a genealogical site.  But I do think you're right on the One versus I issue.  Certainly the ANZAC template is using One.

Answer 4

Dropping WWI for the LNAB reason makes as much sense as dropping the Sr. suffix. Who knew, when they were born, that they would live to sire Juniors?