Category talk:Browse: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(discuss the category tree; also mention HierarchyConsideredHarmful.)
(→‎Category:Should be empty?: Category vs. Template)
Line 13: Line 13:


:: Would a template be better than a category -- template <code><nowiki>{{category that should be empty}}</nowiki></code> ? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:: Would a template be better than a category -- template <code><nowiki>{{category that should be empty}}</nowiki></code> ? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:::A template would work as a warning to editors not to put stuff there. However, as a tool to identify categories to watch, a category might be more useful. Of course, you can use a template which also adds items to a category. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 16:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)


== Main Topics? ==  
== Main Topics? ==  

Revision as of 21:37, 5 December 2008

As I see language categories expanding from English, French, German and onward. I wonder about scalabilty questions and wonder if a language toolbar be added somewhere, or something like that. Food for thought, Best, MarkDilley | talk


Ted, grooving along with your recent wiki discoveries, what do you think about {{Browse}}?

Do you mean in place of [[Category:Browse]]? Would you envision that template having any text or just being a shortcut to putting a page in the category? We have few templates now, like add, delete and the like, that put a notice on the page as well as categorizing. We just need to figure out what works best. TedErnst | talk 13:29, 9 Mar 2006 (EST)

Category:Should be empty?

Should there be a “Should be empty” category? For categories such as “Category:New York” (see talk on that Category:New York page.) --EarthFurst 18:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)

or perhaps “Categories that should be empty” category? --EarthFurst 19:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Would a template be better than a category -- template {{category that should be empty}} ? --DavidCary 23:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)
A template would work as a warning to editors not to put stuff there. However, as a tool to identify categories to watch, a category might be more useful. Of course, you can use a template which also adds items to a category. --MarvelZuvembie 16:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Main Topics?

I am very confused by the topics part of Proposal:CategoryTree. The Proposal 6.13.06 Category Tree image has "Main Topic" with subtopics (referred to as "Topic"s). I'm wondering which topics qualify as "Main Topic"s and which topics are only "Topics" (aka subtopics). Is Sex a Main Topic or subtopic? Is Sexuality a Main Topic or subtopic? For comparison, I looked at part of a category tree at Wikipedia. Wikipedia's Category:LGBT is a subcat of Sexual orientation, Sexual orientation is a subcat of Sexual attraction, Sexual attraction is a subcat of Sexuality, Sexuality is a subcat of Sex. And wikipedia's Sex category is a subcategory of the Reproduction, Genetics and Reproductive system categories. Does LGBT qualify as a Main Topic? (There are various LGBT wikis) Or/and should Category:LGBT be a subcategory of Category:Sexuality? Should Category:Sex be empty with "Sex" wikis reclassified as "Sexuality" wikis? --EarthFurst 15:54, 8 February 2008 (EST)

If I understand Proposal:CategoryTree correctly, any category directly referenced by a wiki is, by definition, a "Topic" (subtopic). Any category directly referenced only by other subcategories, not by any wiki, would be (by definition) a "Main topic". It has nothing to do with how "big" or "important" the topic is in the real world, only with whether or not some wiki is tagged with that category, or whether some other category is tagged with that category.
If occasionally some wiki article is erroneously tagged by a "too general" main topic tag, in those cases that article should be corrected to a "more specific" subtopic instead.
In particular, in the WikiIndex:How do categories work diagram, the proposed category tree would have the Arbor wiki tagged with "AnnArbor" category, but not the "Michigan" category or the "Places" category, since the "AnnArbor" category is already tagged as a subcategory of "Michigan", and "Michigan" is already tagged as a subcategory of "Places".
So the "AnnArbor" category is a "Topic" (because it is used to tag at least one wiki), but "Michigan" and "Places" are "Main Topic"s ... at least until some wiki messes up our neat hierarchy, such as Wikitravel, a wiki designed to cover all places.
Because sometimes hierarchy is considered harmful, I worry that forcing everything into a tree like this may not work.
--DavidCary 23:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Template:CategoryDiscussions