nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
11,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 158:
Line 158: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages (view source)
Revision as of 07:45, March 9, 2008
, 07:45, March 9, 2008→New Categories: reply
::: 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)
::::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)
::::Thanks Learn together for your very helpful comments. I have incorporated your suggestions into my list below:
::::'''Appropriate'''
:::*Every article should have at least one category.
:::*Large categories should be broken down when size becomes combersome or difficult to manage.
:::*Appropriate for our target audience (conservative and Christian).
:::*Make a logical link within the overall category structure.
:::*New editors should discuss appropriate categories on the articles' talk page <u>prior</u> to adding categories.
:::*Categories are to be in title case (e.g. Australian Cities and Towns, not Australian cities and towns)
:::*Categories are to be plural where applicable (e.g. Planets, not Planet, but Rail Transport).
::::'''Inappropriate'''
:::*New editors adding categories without discussing it on the articles' talk page.
:::*Adding categories to articles based upon "silly" grounds.
:::*Categories in lower case (e.g. not Australian cities and towns)
:::*Categories in singular tense (e.g. not Planet)
:::*Few members in the category - it is possible to over-categorize if the category will only have a few members.
:::*A similar category already exists.
:::*Trying to use a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Conservapedia doesn't follow Wikipedia guidlines regarding NPOV.
::::This is a start. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 03:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)