Conservapedia:Category planning

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Initial recent thoughts

Most of the posts in this section were copied from a discussion on TK's talk page.

I notice you've queried a couple of my category edits. Permit me to explain:

  • My rationale is simply that it makes sense for all pages, and all categories, to be categorized. Category:Everything exists as a home for top-level categories. I've been going through and adding what seem to be the most logical categories to pages that lack them. Most of the empty categories tend to overlap with existing ones that are used more, so I've been adding deletion notices to that effect.
  • American leaders: I still think this should be deleted, because even if such a category is wanted, Conservapedia style is to call it Category:United States Leaders.
  • Energy: Physics and Technology seem logical to me, though Category:Industry might also be good. If you disagree with any of my choices just change them, but please improve the categories rather than reverting the page to its uncategorized state.

Thanks and I hope that clears this up.--CPalmer 12:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Should also add that long-term the categories here need a lot of reorganization, particularly subcategorizing the pages in vast general categories like Physics and Biographies. I see giving every page a category as a logical first step to create a platform from which to build. Thanks again.--CPalmer 12:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • I agree, which is why Mr. Schlafly asked me to coordinate the reorganization months ago. There has been discussion about this on Interiot's page, there is a link to category discussion on my user page as well, and at Azriphale's page on categories. Without some notice from an editor of their interest, that fact cannot be discerned, right? The reason I am coordinating, not dictating, is without that, the categories would be forever in flux, shuffled about as each editor, in their time, decided to reorganize them to their own sense of logic. Can you understand the reasoning here? People get frustrated doing them, and it is a rather frustrating task at times, I fully understand! What Mr. Schafly wants is to avoid removing all traces of American-centric categories, as this is an American encyclopedia. That is why I gave a start with the "United States _____" whatevers. I would sincerely appreciate your help, guidance and input. Just say how you wish to communicate, special page, email, IM, or whatever, and I will make it happen. I suppose Interiot will wish to continue to participate as well, and of course everyone is welcome to help. We just need to make a blueprint, and I can get Ed Poor to use his bot to mass move/rename cats. My only obligation will be to occasionally run problematic cats past Andy for his judgment. --₮K/Talk 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)
This user talk page is not the best place, but while we're here...
Many people need to go into multiple categories. Possibly as many as half of the people we have article on, are interesting because they are Authors. We'll go to their article to find out what they think, and what they've said or written. Some people have had interesting lives. Their Biographies tell us what they've done, and what's happened to them.
The point is never to assign an article to the single best category for it. Rather, it is to make sure that groups of related articles are assembled together where readers can find them. --Ed Poor Talk 12:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Happy to discuss in more detail wherever you think best - perhaps a Wikiproject along the lines of Wikiproject:News would be suitable? Some degree of coordination clearly is needed (as far as possible given the nature of a wiki-based project), but in the meantime can we agree that cleaning up uncategorized pages is a good first step? If they turn out to be misassigned later, the bot can pick them up along with any others.
Any discussion should also involve User:WesleyS, as he did the bulk of the work in categorizing the 1400+ uncategorized pages there were until about 3 weeks ago.--CPalmer 13:42, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I would also like to help with this project, with the limited time I have here. We seem to have far too many categories, in my opinion, so I am especially interested in eliminating categories with >3 or so pages. -DrSandstone 13:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Dr., the idea is to have many categories, the better able to search for articles with, make it easier for users to search for what they want, and not do what those who edit wikis would do, simplify and streamline it. We need to gear it to our student base, those who might not have the ability to think of what you or I know to be "the best" category for a given article. But I can understand how a few articles might be better re-classified into larger cats as well. --₮K/Talk 14:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I think I understand the vision. I guess my comment was actually about the wanted categories list, which has a number of wanted categories with one or two pages linked to them. But I will wait for the project page to discuss further, and look forward to this project. -DrSandstone 14:23, 2 December 2008 (EST)
  • CPalmer, I will create a page like that used for News, later tonight, and send everyone here the link, in case it is missed in recent changes. The initiative in putting all the needed pages into categories is laudable, and I certainly like initiative, but I also dislike needless re-working. I would ask, what is the rush? Can I count on you to put on your thinking cap, all of you, and give it a day, make a line chart of super cats, and what your ideas of the downline should be? Then, if I am super-nice, I might persuade the ever-busy Ed Poor to unleash his mighty bot, and save us all endless hours! --₮K/Talk 14:12, 2 December 2008 (EST)

No objection to omitting an under-populated category from an article, provided first the article is added to another (suitable) category. Bear in mind that sometimes it's good to keep a category with only a couple article in it, in the hopes that more article will be added. There are no knee-jerk solutions, and User:EdBot certainly won't be making and decisions based on a formula. Human judgment shall prevail (see free will). --Ed Poor Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the tip of the hat, Ed! Human 22:37, 3 December 2008 (EST)
This all sounds very good - I'm happy to be involved.--CPalmer 14:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Likewise. I'll help with the project as much as I can. WesleySHello! 14:43, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Same here. JY23 08:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Potential sub-project

I think it would behoove us to look at the wanted categories list and remove any cat tags on pages that are used minimally and are too specific/redundant. For an example, category:Martin Luther King, Jr. should probably be removed from the MLK page. -DrSandstone 10:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I'd like to go ahead with this. If everyone is in agreement, or needs clarification, please let me know. Thanks. -DrSandstone 13:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)
I agree with this, just so long as there aren't any other pages involved that would then be orphaned. If MLK is the only page in the MLK category, then he can be placed in Civil Rights. If, however, there are other 'sub-pages' that have only to do with MLK that aren't specifically the MLK page, then we probably need a subcategory as such. WesleySHello! 15:25, 3 December 2008 (EST)
I agree. And the MLK page is already categorized (appropriately in my opinion). I was actually not going to remove any of these categories that are on the wanted list if the page isn't already appropriately categorized in a more significant, existing category. That should make the "wanted categories" list easier to work with, leaving only the legitimate wanted categories. I might have time today, but more likely tomorrow to get started. But everyone, feel free to start without me. -DrSandstone 15:31, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Plan of Attack

How do we want to tackle these? Are we to completely restructure the category hierarchy? I had initially begun to take the categories belonging to one large 'supercategory', i.e. Religion, and sort them into a logical flowchart of hierarchy (i.e. Religion -> Religions -> Christianity -> Bible -> Biblical Perons -> Book of Genesis Persons -> Noah (page)), but realizing how many subcategories there are, found that to be quite a daunting task requiring days to sort out. Anyone have any suggestions? WesleySHello! 17:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Organization Hierarchies

A dual intertwined system of hierarchies should be set up. one for subject and and one for nation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo.plrd (talk)

Uncategorized Categories

The list is now minimal, down to 18. Those on the list are either empty or locked, or I'm unsure as to where to categorize. Those that are locked, and my suggestions (for what they're worth):


WesleySHello! 20:22, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Recent waves of categories

I like the direction this is going. Things are becoming more streamlined. I've been trying to stick with the 'people' categories (i.e. Category:Biographies and Category:Political People) to sort them out into more specific subcategories. If you have the time, there are a few articles in the Biographies cat that I can't get my head around putting into a subcategory (insomuch as it won't be the only one in said subcategory). Two heads are better than one! WesleySHello! 15:27, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Seems good - I'll see if I can look at it tomorrow. I agree that now that there are few uncategorized articles or categories, the next step is to whittle down the biggest categories into a manageable size.
Are you working on the basis that Biographies shouldn't have any pages in it, only subcategories?--CPalmer 16:30, 12 December 2008 (EST)
I'm working toward emptying Biographies, but attempting to avoid setting up single-page subcategories. I know this isn't going to happen, unless we set up a 'Others' subcategory, but that seems messy. In actuality, the category is now quite clean, as all of the subcategories and pages fit on one page. WesleySHello! 12:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
I've created Category:United States History Figures, as a lot of the people in the top-level biography category are from the early history of the US.--CPalmer 07:29, 13 December 2008 (EST)