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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/09/06, maru dubshinki
<marudubshinki(a)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(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l