[WikiEN-l] Hello

[Parker Peters]

On 12/12/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
> > >
> > > When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category
> ³Suicides².
> > > If
> > > a person¹s article stated they committed suicide, the category,
> > ³Suicides²
> > > would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> > > firearm,
> > > the Category, ³Suicides by firearm² would be also be included. In this
> > > case
> > > the Category, ³Deaths by firearm² would also be included. In this way,
> > the
> > > researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia
> > who
> > > had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> > > separate
> > > lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list
> of
> > > all
> > > persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.
> >
> >
> > And yes, this makes sense.
> >
> > We've had other writers pulling the same nonsense in other topics in the
> > past: fictional vampires listed as fictional vampires but not
> mythological
> > creatures, articles regarding aspects and criticism of the Koran being
> > included in the Koran category but with editors insisting that including
> > it
> > in the "Islam" category as well being redundant, various grades of
> > conspiracy theory put into one group but not another, and so on.
> >
> > A square is a rectangle, is also a regular polyhedron, is also a
> > polyhedron,
> > and so on, and each of these categories applies in its own way. I think
> > the
> > same thing is true for categories, the more categories something is
> listed
> > under (as long as they are relevant), the better and redundancy (the
> idea
> > that one category's listings are also completely encompassed by another)
> > is
> > not a bad thing, it only indicates a tighter degree of search.
>
>
> Articles should only belong to the most specific of categories in which
> they
> can belong. The goals of categorization are different from the goals of
> flat
> interlinking.


No, articles should belong to whichever categories they reasonably fit into.

If an article fits into Mythology, and Greek Mythology, and Pre-Homeric
Greek Mythology, and Athenian Mythology all at once, then it should be in
ALL of those categories, because each is a different search. Yes, Mythology
might encompass all of Greek Mythology, but So What? Someone looking for
various mythological figures might grab Mythology first, and we're well
served by having them do so and have an easier time migrating to the more
specific area from there.

Parker