Changes

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==

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?''