Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page" feedback, please? Message: 6
Steve Bennett wrote:
That shouldn't even be necessary. That just creates the semantic problems we have. It could be as simple as
[[:Intersect:American|Actors|Link text]]
That reminds me. What about category unions?
Rick Block and I spent some time discussing the syntax for intersections (see [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]] or the shortcut [[WP:CI]]). Since there can be more than two categories involved, and you'd still want to pipe how it was displayed, we came up with:
[[:Intersection:Actors::Americans::Living people|Living American actors]]
I'm not certain that category unions are nearly as critical. Since all these "index" categories (Americans, Actors, Poets, Writers, etc...) would be fully populated, they would already contain the union of all their sub-categories. The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or Poets and Novelists. For most topics these do not seem very significant.
There are several ways intersections could be implemented. We've sketched out 3 alternative approaches at [[WP:CI]].
-- Samuel Wantman
Samuel Wantman wrote:
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page" feedback, please? Message: 6
Steve Bennett wrote:
That shouldn't even be necessary. That just creates the semantic problems we have. It could be as simple as
[[:Intersect:American|Actors|Link text]]
That reminds me. What about category unions?
Rick Block and I spent some time discussing the syntax for intersections (see [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]] or the shortcut [[WP:CI]]). Since there can be more than two categories involved, and you'd still want to pipe how it was displayed, we came up with:
[[:Intersection:Actors::Americans::Living people|Living American actors]]
You're right. That's better, because you don't always have to have link text (though you probably should).
The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or Poets and Novelists. For most topics these do not seem very significant.
I'm fairly sure people would come up with uses. It shouldn't be much additional work to do this if intersections are already being done.
Matthew Flaschen
Uses? How about [[:Intersection:FA-Class hurricane articles:: Top-importance hurricane articles|Top-Importance FA-Class hurricane articles]] in the English Wikipedia, providing links for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Tropical_c yclone_articles_by_quality_statistics and its 320+ siblings? That page needs 28 intersections to be fully linked, and other big projects within [[WP:1.0/I]] will need probably as many.
Titoxd
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:03 AM To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page" feedback, please?
Samuel Wantman wrote:
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Category Intersections: "Proof of Concept Page" feedback, please? Message: 6
Steve Bennett wrote:
That shouldn't even be necessary. That just creates the semantic problems we have. It could be as simple as
[[:Intersect:American|Actors|Link text]]
That reminds me. What about category unions?
Rick Block and I spent some time discussing the syntax for intersections (see [[Wikipedia:Category intersection]] or the shortcut [[WP:CI]]). Since there can be more than two categories involved, and you'd still want to pipe how it was displayed, we came up with:
[[:Intersection:Actors::Americans::Living people|Living American actors]]
You're right. That's better, because you don't always have to have link text (though you probably should).
The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or
Poets and Novelists. For most topics these do not seem very significant.
I'm fairly sure people would come up with uses. It shouldn't be much additional work to do this if intersections are already being done.
Matthew Flaschen
On 1/10/07, Samuel Wantman wantman@earthlink.net wrote:
I'm not certain that category unions are nearly as critical. Since all these "index" categories (Americans, Actors, Poets, Writers, etc...) would be fully populated, they would already contain the union of all their sub-categories. The only thing missing would be unions of only some of the subcategories, for instance, the union of Comedy films and Drama films, or Poets and Novelists. For most topics these do not seem very significant.
Not as important as intersections, no. But while I've been bitten for spouting off about stuff I'm ignorant of before, surely calculating a union would be cheaper than calculating an intersection anyway?
Simetrical wrote:
Not as important as intersections, no. But while I've been bitten for spouting off about stuff I'm ignorant of before, surely calculating a union would be cheaper than calculating an intersection anyway?
I don't think so. Basically, the way you do a union is make a list including all the articles in both categories (including duplicates). Then, you remove...the intersection.
Matthew Flaschen
Matthew Flaschen escribió:
Simetrical wrote:
Not as important as intersections, no. But while I've been bitten for spouting off about stuff I'm ignorant of before, surely calculating a union would be cheaper than calculating an intersection anyway?
I don't think so. Basically, the way you do a union is make a list including all the articles in both categories (including duplicates). Then, you remove...the intersection.
Matthew Flaschen
You don't probably need the intersection. If you're giving out the results sorted (as categories are doing), the merge algorithm would remove duplicates 'on the way'. If you have 2 categories of 1000 articles, it's much _easier_ to 'throw' elements of any of them to fill 200 articles, than searching for the (little) ones which may be on both.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org