Category talk:Songs with lyrics by Joe Hill (activist)

IWW subcategorization
(This discussion moved from User talk:Richhoncho) Djr13 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you recently removed Category:Songs with lyrics by Joe Hill from Category:Industrial Workers of the World, which I had previously categorized. I am wondering if you did this aware of why it was categorized this way, and if this was done for a category tree type reason or another. Djr13 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because industrial workers are not songs. Nor vice versa. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Industrial Workers of the World is a category for subjects relating to the labor union Industrial Workers of the World, of which Joe Hill was a part and which was central to his songwriting career and to his songs. Djr13 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite. Joe Hill is an industrial worker, his songs are not! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But his songs are IWW songs. Unless the issue is related to redundancy or improving the category tree, the category is a part of Category:Industrial Workers of the World and should reflect that. Djr13 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why the category is also in Category:Trade union songs which is fine. Category:Industrial Workers of the World relates to WORKERS NOT SONGS. If I look at the category I don't expect to find a bunch of songs, why do you? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Industrial Workers of the World is a very broad eponymous category dealing with such things as over a century of history, philosophy and culture of the organization and worker movement that the category was named for. Songs are one of many core parts of this, as stated for example in Industrial Workers of the World, and Joe Hill's songs are a particularly significant part of this. Djr13 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then make your category name more appropriate!!! It is irrelevant and useless as is it named presently. I note that each of the songs is is the category, and they don't belong there with the current name, even more so if Category:Songs with lyrics by Joe Hill was in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhoncho (talk • contribs) 2012-11-03T15:47:17‎
 * Given that the other eponymous category is about a somewhat extensive topic, it's bound to have a wide range of topics that significantly relate to it. It might be good to put this and other IWW related categories and articles into subcategories of Category:Industrial Workers of the World where appropriate. For example, creating something such as a Category:Industrial Workers of the World culture or Category:Industrial Workers of the World music to put this category within, which to put under the broader IWW eponymous category. Otherwise, since the issue that led to the revert of my categorization was the mistaken impression that Category:Industrial Workers of the World (note capitalization of proper name of organization) was simply about "industrial workers", where it rather includes such cultural topics as IWW-related songs and the songs of IWW songwriter Joe Hill in particular, returning the prior subcategorization may be the most relevant immediate solution until such work can be done. Does this sound appropriate? Djr13 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The category is named after the thing which it is about (i.e., the organisation called Industrial Workers of the World). I fail to see how it could have a name that is any more appropriate than one which exactly describes the topic. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would happily agree to a category along the lines of the Industrial Workers of the World songs. Poor Joe Hill doesn't deserve the sloppiness of the proposed categorization. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to my my post above. Joe Hill is in Category:People from Gävle not in the eponymous Gävle. This is a solution that should satisfy all parties in the matter. I would think that I am not the only editor who would remove an apparently incorrect category. Now I am aware of the context I have no objection to categorizing somehow to IWW. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)