Category talk:People from Texas

Untitled
Perhaps we should group XYZ together? Redwolf24 08:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"People from Texas"
Is ugly. Is there a legitimate (if wrong-headed) policy reason that this isn't just "Category: Texans?" -LlywelynII (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Banner
I would think that possibly the phrasing could be changed. To be more specific, I was wondering if the category should be arranged that all people who has clear ties to areas which already are subcategorized and areas which are not should be allowed to remain in both the subcategory and the main category. Specifically, let's say a given person hails from both Andrews, Texas, and Dallas, Texas. I think we might be able to place them in the Category: People from Dallas, while keeping them in the main category, as Andrews residents have not yet been subcategorized out. I would welcome any responses. Badbilltucker 13:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What about "people born in ..." and "people lived in ..." or such? But the reason why the cat is so large is cause each person is in Category:People from Texas.  Where John Henry Faulk shopuld only be in Category:People from Austin, Texas, he's in both.   Jo  e  I  13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Texans
The entry Famous Texans in the category links directly back to the category itself, and I can't find anything on the category's page to indicate how this happened. I'm not entirely sure what should be done, but something should be. Badbilltucker 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently the article Famous Texans redirects to this category (using a usual redirect). Also, Famous Texans is included in this category. You can visit the article (here) and remove the category inclusion (use {helpme} on your talk page if you want a hand with that). Or maybe the redirect should be deleted, or made soft. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but the people down at WikiProject Texas may know.--Commander Keane 15:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed further subcategorization
Subcategorization into the existing subcategories is now complete. I personally tend to think that the number remaining is still too large to make the list at all useful for anyone. On that basis, I am proposing here and now that subcategories be added to those that already exist to bring the number of pages in the "People from Texas" category down to a reasonable level. Having looked at the micropolitan statistical areas by population, their current populations run in the following descending order:
 * Lufkin, Texas,
 * Athens, Texas,
 * Huntsville, Texas,
 * Nacogdoches, Texas,
 * Rio Grande Valley-Roma, Texas,
 * Palestine, Texas,
 * Granbury, Texas,
 * Eagle Pass, Texas,
 * Paris, Texas,
 * Corsicana, Texas,
 * Jacksonville, Texas,
 * Del Rio, Texas,
 * Kerrville, Texas,
 * El Campo, Texas,
 * Alice, Texas,
 * Gainesville, Texas,
 * Brownwood, Texas,
 * Bay City, Texas,
 * Plainview, Texas,
 * Stephenville, Texas,
 * Sulphur Springs, Texas,
 * Beeville, Texas,
 * Big Spring, Texas,
 * Bonham, Texas,
 * Kingsville, Texas,
 * Brenham, Texas,
 * Mount Pleasant, Texas,
 * Mineral Wells, Texas,
 * Uvalde, Texas,
 * Levelland, Texas,
 * Borger, Texas,
 * Pampa, Texas,
 * Dumas, Texas,
 * Raymondville, Texas,
 * Hereford, Texas,
 * Snyder, Texas,
 * Sweetwater, Texas,
 * Lamesa, Texas,
 * Vernon, Texas,
 * Andrews, Texas, and
 * Pecos, Texas. I would propose that subcategories for these areas, titled either by the name of the core city or by the name of the county (if there is only one in that area) which constitutes that area.  The primary question that comes to mind to me is to determine at which number of names you all think subcategorization should stop.  I would think that 200 pages is sufficient to make a category such as this one all but useless, put am actively seeking out the opinions of others to determine at which point consensus lies.  Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.  I will personally try to begin this further subcategorization when the point of at which subcategorization should end is decided here.

Partially just to be an extremist, I would like to propose what I think might be one of the best options. It seems to me, based on what I have seen here and elsewhere, that many people will put a page in a big category rather than make any effort to see exactly which subcategory the page might belong in. On that basis, I would propose, just to see what kind of response it gets, that a subcategory for each of the cities/counties above be made. It might even be possible to create either a subcategory or references on the county page for every county in the state. If subcategories for each county were made, as the extreme, it would make it clear that any page which still remains in "People from Texas" was incorrectly categorized, and that all such pages could be reliably eligible for inclusion in some other category. Also, it would make it obvious to anyone creating a new page on a person from Texas that it should be placed in a subcategory page, and at least many of them would be likely to do so. I know from having looked over several of the pages already that many people have placed pages in "People from Texas" when it would have already fit within one of the existing subcategories, say, "People from Dallas." It would be more obvious that seeking an approporiate subcategory would be proper if everybody saw that there were virtually no pages in the category. I hope that this last paragraph makes some degree of sense to you all.

I also know that there was at least one user page which was functioning as a vanity page which was in this category, uncommented on, for, if I remember rightly, three years. It was also the one and only contribution ever made by that particular user. It is now, thankfully, gone. However, the category was so huge that apparently no one saw it in all that time. This if nothing else should point out how counterproductive it is to have categories with way too many names in them. Anyway, like stated above, I will start to create subcategories and populate them when I hear from you what you all think the maximum number of pages that should remain in the primary category should be. badbilltucker 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)