What are you talking about, redundant?? It's called structure, man!
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/CategoryOverviewIndex.htm
Our category system serves many purposes which sometimes clash, but surprisingly infrequently, IMO.
Good general rule:don't create a category until it's needed. Therefore it's not at all surprising that categories other than 'leaves' have contents.
Why is everyone so obsessed with cleanup? It's not even fun, let alone necessary (most of the time).
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
And wouldn't there be a lot of database space taken up by redundant categories like this? We could have articles for them, maybe, but at this rate we'll need to start 'WikiProject WikiDbCleanup'. If there are 12,000 categories, that has to make up a significant body of data.
On 9/2/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/09/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, isn't that encouraged? I had thought that most categories were supposed to categorize categories, and only the terminal categories were supposed to have articles in them - ex. [[Category:Free software]] should have only categories in it, not articles on software.
Eh? I don't recall that being required at all. Else you'll end up with a lot of "other x" subcats.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l