Category talk:People

From Brickwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I would like to make this category a sub category of community but I thought I would ask first as it is a high-level category. Tedward 14:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm not sure about that - it includes subjects that I don't really consider "community" per se. ROSCO 16:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
No. Community consists of people, but not all people make up community. (Actually, I think community consists of people, but is also more than a sum of the people of which it consists. Forgive me for waxing philosophical!) Claude Bombarde 22:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I am not following the logic. All people are part of the community are they not? Tedward 22:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I think not. Not all people are part of the community. Some where, some might be yet, and some never will be. For instance, whoever invented ABS is a member of the group 'people', is definitely relevant to BW, but probably has nothing to do with the community. Claude Bombarde 22:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see it done as a cross reference but not a subset. As Claude points out there are various people who aren't part of communities. Any subsetting would probably be better done the other way but I don't think either is neccessary. I've taken the liberty of adding cross-links to both categories to connect them. Tim 08:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
But Tim you answered it with your own notation from the cross reference: If you are interested in groups of people.... The Community is anyone and everyone involved in anything to do with LEGO. Anyone listed in the People category is by definition a member (willing or not, knowing or not) a part of the LEGO community. Unless we are going to define Community as LEGO fans in which case we need to deal with the seperate Fans subcategory. If someone can produce a definition of Community that can somehow exclude ANYONE in the People category then it should stay as Tim has edited. Anyone.... Tedward 09:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Still waiting for a definition of COMMUNITY that DOES NOT include PEOPLE. Tedward 12:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
As Claude points out, all of community is people but not all people are community. Kirk Kjeld is People but definitely not Community. Since having Community as a subset of People would look odd it's better to keep them separate IMO. Tim 13:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Except Claude has it completely backwards. Claude, please define "community" so that it DOES NOT include people and then we can move on. Please, I just want a set definition so we know what we are talking about because I do not see how any "people" are not part of the community? It seems to me that anyone and anything that rates an article on Brickwiki is some aspect of the LEGO community. KK is not part of the community? Are you kidding? He has been to at least one BrickFest. Maybe the inventor of ABS is not an intentional participant within a LEGO community (ie: a LUG or some such) but he is part of the history of LEGO. Frankly if people is not a subset of commnity it should be deleted and articles reassigned to other categories like fans, LEGO Company or community. Anyway, if somone will just provide a definition we can all work from then we can move on. Tedward 19:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Considering that Community has two articles it should probably be deleted. People covers people (as its name says). Community doesn't really seem to cover anything much. I'm going to go to vote for its deletion. Tim 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

People and Fans

I have been reviewing the entries in both the People category and the Fans subcategory. The selection of one category over the other is not clear to me. I think we should work to be consistent: if someone identifies with (or is identified as) an AFOL/ALE, then they should be in Fans, if not, then in people. For instance Michael Huffman is currently in People, but is identified in his article as an AFOL, and so should be changed to Fan. Given that Fans is a subcategory of People, I think this makes sense. Any comment? Claude Bombarde 19:44, 7 August 2012 (CDT)

Makes perfect sense to me. --ALITTLESlow: t/c 17:31, 9 August 2012 (CDT)
Me too. ++Lar: t/c 06:32, 10 August 2012 (CDT)
If we are going to maintain both categories (and I am not sure we need a separate category for fans) then articles should be categorized correctly. Tedward 12:50, 11 August 2012 (CDT)
I agree with that too.. not sure we need both although along as "fans" and "LEGO employees" are subcats of people I think it's OK. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 12 August 2012 (CDT)
Personal tools