Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:1 people
Category:1 people (also: 2 people, 3 people, etc.)
editShould be "1 person", "1 people" is simply incorrect english. Simple as that. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind. When you become an admin you may also act arbitrarily. Who will stop you, other ADMINS? 186.172.245.52 04:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bit puzzled by this comment. Admins (like me) just have tools, they don't override community consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 10:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)- "Admins like you"? Maybe. I don't know you. Others are others. 186.172.245.52 12:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bit puzzled by this comment. Admins (like me) just have tools, they don't override community consensus. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
- In any case, please make sure one directs to the other no content remains in the redirected category. I fixed it the other week and now it's broken again. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Support — As per the syntax of {{Groups/data}}, the calling template of {{Groups}}, the singular of "people" should be "person". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- While Matrix is correct, I'm not really convinced that either solution is ideal. If one quantifies the number of members in a group of people, "15 persons" could preferable over "15 people". Using "persons" for plural should also resolve the point why some preferred "1 people". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This breaks the long-standing convention of using "people" or "humans" for the plural of Homo sapiens, even if we use "person" for single human. It is better not to deviate from the convention while fixing the name of this category. Or course, there are cases where plural and singular forms are identical (1 aircraft, 2 aircraft). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why we must use "people" because you used "humans" for some other category. Makes no sense. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999 I'm confused why using "person"/"persons" is any better or different than using "person"/"people", or what impact it would have on this category. This question is one of what should be the singular form of people (or persons). Whether we go with "persons" or "people" doesn't seem to change the fact that "people" would be the singular form. Am I missing something? Josh (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Currently some seem to prefer to use one word (1/2/3/etc people) over two words (1 person, 2/3/etc people). Using person(s) would offer this as well and makes it consistency with almost all other categories that count the number of elements in the group. Besides, for quantification, "15 persons" is preferable over "15 people". Enhancing999 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: According to Cambridge Dictionary [1] "to refer to groups of human beings or humans in general, we use people", and persons is quite antiquated and usually only referrs to legal stuff. Whilst consistency is a benefit, I think not confusing users with incorrect terminology which could be confusing is a higher priority. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)- Are you saying people would be confused when reading "3 persons" ? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- To an extent, yes because it's simply antiquated (also see wikt:persons; "used to refer to them individually, rather than as a group") —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 05:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- What would they mistaken it for ? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- They might think that it is in a legal context or similar. Two persons has a somewhat formal and legal connotation to it. If we look at the Google Trends, two people is by far more popular. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 08:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- They might think that it is in a legal context or similar. Two persons has a somewhat formal and legal connotation to it. If we look at the Google Trends, two people is by far more popular. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
- What would they mistaken it for ? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- To an extent, yes because it's simply antiquated (also see wikt:persons; "used to refer to them individually, rather than as a group") —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
- Are you saying people would be confused when reading "3 persons" ? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: According to Cambridge Dictionary [1] "to refer to groups of human beings or humans in general, we use people", and persons is quite antiquated and usually only referrs to legal stuff. Whilst consistency is a benefit, I think not confusing users with incorrect terminology which could be confusing is a higher priority. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
- Currently some seem to prefer to use one word (1/2/3/etc people) over two words (1 person, 2/3/etc people). Using person(s) would offer this as well and makes it consistency with almost all other categories that count the number of elements in the group. Besides, for quantification, "15 persons" is preferable over "15 people". Enhancing999 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- This breaks the long-standing convention of using "people" or "humans" for the plural of Homo sapiens, even if we use "person" for single human. It is better not to deviate from the convention while fixing the name of this category. Or course, there are cases where plural and singular forms are identical (1 aircraft, 2 aircraft). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)