On 8/24/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To answer your
"why?" question: Because subcategories don't work. The
princple that "If X is a subcat of Y, then Z should not be in both X
and Y" is totally bogus and unworkable - at the moment.
Why that?
Because, as we've agreed, it's not easy to browse both a category and
its subcats at the moment. Your response is not to use subcats. My
response is to put articles in both the category and its subcat.
Just my gut feeling - what's the use of this
category? Would anyone
think "Hey, this is a fictional Jeet Kune Do practitioner, I would
want more of those". Still, I agree that after all the category is
good, because you *would* want to have them in Category:Jeet Kune Do
practioners, but when getting to that category from a real person, you
don't want to bump into the fictional characters. So, in the end, I'm
happy with this one.
I think you're overlooking the value of categories as semantic markup.
I disagree with that. Strongly. A category is to find
similar
subjects, and that is best done by having a certain size of
That's only one, fairly narrow use.
categories. Split them up further, and you only give
more work to
those trying to look something up. Going with your principle would
Because the software is no good at grouping subcats together. (Not
blaming the developers, we just don't have a good category/subcategory
model).
Well, it's the thing we discussed before. Or at
least the thing I
thought we were discussing before. It's a subcategory of tennessee
counties, but the articles in it are not about Tennessee counties, but
about cities. I don't see why you vehemently oppose putting "Jesus"
under 'People executed for heresy" yet consider putting "Haywood
County, Tennessee" in "Tennessee counties" 'good working order'.
To me
it's twice the same kind of thing.
Sorry, that's my mistake, didn't realise that the *category* "Haywod
County, Tennessee" was in "Tennessee counties". There's got to be a
better model for this stuff that makes more sense.
We are here to make the encyclopedia, not to make a
classification
scheme of everything. It would, in my opinion, be so much more useful
Well, we could simply have 1,300,000 uncategorised pages. Or we could
build an information rich categorisation scheme that makes pages easy
to find and establishes meaningful links between them.
to have (for example) one category about "1860s
in Mexico" than to
have to go through 11 categories to find those. Again my question is:
What is the use of categories? To me it is, getting similar pages
They seem to have lots of uses, and the better the model, and the
better the implementation, probably the more uses we will come up
with. Saying "Categories are only good for X" is unnecessarily
restrictive.
Steve