On 02/05/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Categorise on the most granular scale that is useful and practical. If
> you can't usefully divide a category below a thousand members, then
> leave it with a thousand members - but most categories can, and
> should, be broken down well before you reach that point.
Unfortunately, you're a librarian and you see and
think through the obvious
this way, but try telling that sometimes to the folks at Commons, where, if
it doesn't fit on a single article page, it CANNOT be a category.
Categorisation on Commons is an *entirely* different kettle of fish,
one which as far as I am aware is in flux right now, and one I don't
even begin to try to pretend to understand. Perhaps this might be
better asked to commons-l?
The other issue, though, is, do the Wikipedia users
use categories to find
information? IF this is the case, then they might be built differently from
how they would be if they were only internally used by editors. As the
categories are listed on the article page, I suspect this is the intention,
but I get argued down on this, no one should ever categorize something for
the use of the reader, again, especially in Commons, but also in Wikipedia,
categories don't exist for users. Then why display them in article space?
On Wikipedia, they exist for readers. I see readers using them. As a
reader, I use them (occasionally).
On Commons, the entire concept of what a user is, what a user is
looking for, is different. I wouldn't like to try to insist both work
in the same way.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk