<DIV><EM>Charles Matthews </EM>wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>Does it work that way? My experience is that WikiProjects typically have a<BR>stated aim of 'standardising' how articles are written; which sounds good to<BR>some people but is never enforceable and can be too prescriptive.<BR>Categories can be added by individuals acting alone. Where there are<BR>already lists of articles by topics, adding categories is relatively<BR>straightforward. The creation of such lists really ought to devolve to<BR>relevant WikiProjects; but that doesn't see to be how it pans out in<BR>practice.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>Charles, if that is not the way they have worked so far, my suggestion - of using Wikiprojects to smooth out categories and make people interested in a specific topic work together - is what I would like implemented from now on, at least in the Wikiprojects I am interested in. Adding Categories at random makes things immensely confusing, as I have discovered in the past couple of days - I can't even create an index of writers without running into scattered lists that overlap in some places and are very incomplete in others, and are not the same as identically labelled lists elsewhere (ex. List of French authors does not correspond to the list of French writers on the French personalities page.) A minimal standardisation - ex. the formatting of an article into Bio, Works, Bibliography, External Links, Categories - makes perfect sense, and I don't believe that is too prescriptive - it's not much of an imposition on actual
content.</DIV><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/security/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/protection.html">Yahoo! Mail</a> - You care about security. So do we.