nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 157:
Line 157: +
Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages (view source)
Revision as of 07:28, March 9, 2008
, 07:28, March 9, 2008→New Categories
::Yes, I mean ''new'' categories. I agree with the basic necessity of categories. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Yes, I mean ''new'' categories. I agree with the basic necessity of categories. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::: Do you have any suggestions on what those guidelines should be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 9 March 2008 (EST)
::: Do you have any suggestions on what those guidelines should be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 9 March 2008 (EST)
::::Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage. It should also be appropriate for our target audience. Personally, I try to only create new categories when I can place several articles under the new category and make a logical link within the overall category structure. One of the big shortcomings of Wikipedia is the morass of categories and navigation. Generally I have found our KISS method to be easier for casual movement. It should also be noted that one of the strategies discussed by those who oppose the message of Conservapedia was to make our category system so complex or ridiculously redundant that we lose the ease of movement of the attention of people who might be curious about what our site has to offer. Any new contributors who jump in with creating a number of questionable categories and altering current category designations before even adding new articles should be looked at carefully. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 9 March 2008 (EDT)