Brion sarcastically wrote:
Wow! Just like article titles. Maybe we should let only
sysops name articles, then everyone else can fill in
But, they might repeat information or organize it badly.
Better to let sysops define the structure of the article,
then everyone else can fill in the bodies of the
I was proposing a voting scheme so why the straw man? I know and accept we are
a wiki but do we allow the wiki process to drive our software developement?
Isn't forming relations in a database that a SORT command could operate on
more of a software thing? Wiki is not a panacea and we are treding into
uncharted waters - I'm not aware of another wiki implementing a category
scheme successfully. Are you?
Either way, I am not advocating a "sysop-only" system on top of some broad
staring categories - at least until we establish a framework for how a
category system will work. Once that is set-up and working well, then we can
consider whether or not it is wise to open up the floodgates and let people
make weird little sub-categories the wiki-way.
Having category aliases (just like redirects) and
categories include other categories would make this
Perhaps - so long as we have an RC that can be effectively managed. Of the
3000 edits made a day on en.wiki I review about 1000. Most people review far
less and only at certain times of the day. There is great potential for
categories to become nearly as numerous as articles real fast. That will
clutter the articles (or their meta namespace) and not represent an effective
way for people to sort articles.
I am very strongly against a category scheme that
is limited or sysops-only. I *want* my obscure sub-categories.
I've ALREADY stated that I want to just start small, at the top level, then
phase-in voting to increase the number of categories and THEN consider
opening it up further. Please do not mischaracterize what I stated - I DID
NOT say that this would be something limited to only sysops. Voting includes
everyone who is interested.
Also, how is anybody else going to know what the categories are? Person A
creates a bunch of really obscure sub-categories for a time. Then moves onto
other things. Not knowing about the work of person A, person B creates a
bunch more very similar sub-categories in a similar area. Now there two very
similar categories. Then person C does a sort based on person A's
subcategories (assuming person C could guess what those might be).
This could get out of hand if we do not first devise a way for us to find out
what different categories are. Different people will categorize things in
different ways and soon nobody will be able to remember what syntax they used
for a category. This happens all the time in badly created databases; Bay
Area Rapid Transit, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, BART, bartd are all the
same thing in the real world but to the database they are each different.
Category redirects would help here but before that we would have to establish
naming conventions to minimize duplicates in the first place and maybe a flag
on RC to indicate that somebody just categorized an article. Then there needs
to be a centralized place for all categories to reside so they can be
How such a system would work needs to be made clear and we need people who are
familiar with how the system works so that they can effectively manage such a
system. A phased approach is needed - that is all.
This is adding a great deal of complexity to what we already have and exposes
many non-database-oriented people to the complexities of database design so
pardon me if I'm a bit weary about us just jumping-in head first on this.
KQ has already expressed many reservations about the ugly filtering issues
that a category scheme raises. I'm just trying to make sure that if such a
system were established that we do it right and minimize negative
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)