Difference between revisions of "User:TK/SandboxCat"
Aziraphale (talk | contribs) (all kinds of stuff) |
Aziraphale (talk | contribs) m (wikify) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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. | + | :"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. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
==# of categories== | ==# 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? | + | # 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? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
==reorganization of categories== | ==reorganization of categories== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
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. | 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. | + | 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. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
==Random question(s) re:categories== | ==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?'' | 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?'' | ||
Revision as of 16:30, July 31, 2007
Here we go kids!
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? Aziraphale 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) <-more than one addition to the page...
Category Organization Ideas
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. Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
# 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? Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
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. Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
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? Aziraphale 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) <- see, what did I tell you?