On 8/24/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It wouldn't solve anything. The category
"British rockbands" would
have "Subcategories of this category should be British rockbands" and
I would have thought subcats of "British rock bands" should more
specific categories of British rock bands, or British rock bands
categorised by city etc. Or maybe even "Defunct British rock bands"
etc etc. Of course, *articles* in the category should be actual
bands...
category "Beatles" would have
"subcategories of this category should
be closely related to the Beatles" - or in my example, countries would
say ''Subcategories of this category should be countries" and Germany
would say "Subcategories of this category should be categories with
German topics"
You're very negative about your fellow editors :)
Why on earth
do you want to do this?
Because a category, to me, is a way to find related pages. And that is
easiest with a certain size, say between 10 and 40 pages in the
Remember how I was saying "subcategories don't work"? Here's why. In
theory, there is absolutely no reason you'd want one category of 50
articles rather than 5 subcats of 10 articles each. It's simply that
the MediaWiki software is particularly bad at browsing categories.
(Mostly because we don't know what subcategories actually mean.)
category. If there is a nice category with 15
subjects, I don't want
to have to stroll through itself and all its 7 subcategories and
sub-subcategories to find them all. And that's not an example that
took me long to find.
You're absolutely right. But your solution is wrong.
Well, that's one thing. Another would be putting
[[Germany]] in
[[Category:Countries]] and taking [[Category:Germany]] out of it.
That seems to me to be the right thing to do. If anything,
Category:Germany should be in "Category:Country categories" or
something.
Steve