5,175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + Line 8:
Line 11: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
all kinds of stuff
Please, anything too controversial, use the email to discuss first!
Please, anything too controversial, use the email to discuss first!
:Not trying to start off by picking a fight, but I just want to be clear - just what about categorization would be too controversial for public consumption? Any suggestions about how to organize things should be pretty mundane, boring stuff right? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-more than one addition to the page...
''
== Category Organization Ideas ==
== Category Organization Ideas ==
that is for articles about natural wonders in Calif, right?
that is for articles about natural wonders in Calif, right?
:"geography" is actually an interesting category. If we're going to have it be the uber-category of ALL things geographical, I'd sub-categorize a little more brutally than you posit above. At a minimum, I'd have a cat:countries between cat:geog and cat:us, just for cleanliness of cats.
==# of categories==
# of cats seems to be on a lot of people's minds. Do we want to rule that a cat is fine if we believe it will eventually be full of stuff, or do we want to have a min # of articles before a cat should exist? So, for example, if only 3 books would be listed as cat:steamy hawt romance then we leave them in cat:book until there are five of them?
==reorganization of categories==
I've written this elsewhere... in fact *goes looking through his sent folder* nah, can't find it. Ok, so here's what I think:
A lot of the basic re-categorization can be done by people like me once a couple of rules are determined. As in, once we settle the question above about reducing the # of categories, for large swaths of them responsible people like myself can simply do the pruning. The complicated part, imo, is the large categories with multiple sub-categories that require significant tuning. For example, take a look at the mess that is cat:religion_____, cat:bible______, cat:christian_____, and cat:conservative_______. There's a whole lot of over-lapping throughout those cats. For those, given that they're the foundation of CP, I recommend a guiding force of one or more sysop/admin types (TK, Ed Poor, whoever) leading a larger group of ... whoever. My first suggestion would be the homeschool students, but they aren't mine to command sooo *shrug*
Once the heads of the group map the actual category breakdown (decide what should exist and what shouldn't) the students/volunteers/whoever go through each article and categorize it appropriately. The group heads would spot-check their work for accuracy, providing constructive feedback as necessary.
Other than that, there's some individual work that needs doing that defies easy categorization. By that I mean, there are probably thousands or articles that, simply, could be categorized better. As we go through each category, article by article, we can keep an eye out for those.
==Random question(s) re:categories==
What's up with cat:biographies? I used it sometimes when I was at a loss for where to put someone. Should every biography of a person ALSO be in cat:bio? Or, should every cat that contains descriptions of people simply be a sub-cat of cat:bio? So, for example, cat:physicists would be a sub-cat of cat:scientists, which would be a sub-cat of cat:biographies? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- see, what did I tell you?''