Category talk:Monarchs of Sweden
Latest comment: 13 years ago by SergeWoodzing in topic Category wrong?
Gallery edit
Moved gallery here from "Regents" which are rulers who are not kings. For article on Monarchs?
- Removed obsolete gallery from here. It is now complete on its own page under this category. EmilEikS (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Category wrong? edit
The fact is that all but 3 of the monarchs were men - is it really inappropriate then to categorize the page under "Men of Sweden"? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think so. Margareta was not a man. Palmerston (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very kindly read what I wrote! Margaret (Margrete) was one of the 3. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have read what you wrote, but I think it is wrong to categorise women as men, although this category have a wast majority of men. Palmerston (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The category has... I think you meant? And I think it is wrong not to, when only 3 out of over 70 people were women and men have dominated the subject matter since the 10th century. Why don't we let someone else have a say? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your only valid argument is about my language. To put a category that includes women into a category exclusive for men is false and I have to change it while we wait for somone to look into this petty debate. Palmerston (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- "a category exclusive for men" - please reference your claim! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to assume that my english is very difficult to understand. I claim that Category:Men of Sweden is a category exclusive for men, hence all files and categories in that specific category should only include men, not thousands of men and three women. I can not reference that though. It seems too obvius to me. Palmerston (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your English isn't that bad at all, and the question of principle is more important that you seem to feel. A group category which consists almost only of men can, in my opinion, be included under "men". Loved the Swedish in your last edit summary (translation: "Holy Mother of God!"), but I didn't get the point there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of categories again. Arbitrary. No consensus to do so. Aganist common use. Terms Kings and Men do apply to this category since an overwhelming majority are men. Feminist or other ideologogical views do not change the correct use of the English language in this case. Please do not remove these categories again! It just does not make any sense (in English) to do so, in my opinion, and English is my first language. The heading gives a perfectly clear explanation about the huge majority of men. These changes are like refusing to acknowledge that an Olympic sports team of 60-70 people, for example, might have only 3-4 women and thus be able to be categorized as Men of the country in question. Such arbitrary refusal is not what we are supposed to be doing here, as I see our responsibilities. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you report me somewhere to get an end to this farce. Palmerston (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Farce? I'll report you for being uncivil if you keep that kind of terminology going. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you report me somewhere to get an end to this farce. Palmerston (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of categories again. Arbitrary. No consensus to do so. Aganist common use. Terms Kings and Men do apply to this category since an overwhelming majority are men. Feminist or other ideologogical views do not change the correct use of the English language in this case. Please do not remove these categories again! It just does not make any sense (in English) to do so, in my opinion, and English is my first language. The heading gives a perfectly clear explanation about the huge majority of men. These changes are like refusing to acknowledge that an Olympic sports team of 60-70 people, for example, might have only 3-4 women and thus be able to be categorized as Men of the country in question. Such arbitrary refusal is not what we are supposed to be doing here, as I see our responsibilities. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your English isn't that bad at all, and the question of principle is more important that you seem to feel. A group category which consists almost only of men can, in my opinion, be included under "men". Loved the Swedish in your last edit summary (translation: "Holy Mother of God!"), but I didn't get the point there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to assume that my english is very difficult to understand. I claim that Category:Men of Sweden is a category exclusive for men, hence all files and categories in that specific category should only include men, not thousands of men and three women. I can not reference that though. It seems too obvius to me. Palmerston (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- "a category exclusive for men" - please reference your claim! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your only valid argument is about my language. To put a category that includes women into a category exclusive for men is false and I have to change it while we wait for somone to look into this petty debate. Palmerston (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The category has... I think you meant? And I think it is wrong not to, when only 3 out of over 70 people were women and men have dominated the subject matter since the 10th century. Why don't we let someone else have a say? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have read what you wrote, but I think it is wrong to categorise women as men, although this category have a wast majority of men. Palmerston (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very kindly read what I wrote! Margaret (Margrete) was one of the 3. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)