[WikiEN-l] Re: A first encounter with Categories

[Anthere]

what about selecting a topic you know well (perhaps Opera ? or a larger 
Music group), gather around you a bunch of editors you know to be 
reliable editors on that topic, then make a working group to identify 
which categories should exist, to which extent, under which naming scheme...
Then, when you all agree together, write down for example all the 
categories which are likely to cover the Opera topic, then make a list 
of all articles which should belong on which category, have a bot do the 
  categories for these articles, and remove all categories which do not 
fit the scheme.

Viajero wrote:
> Thanks to various responses to my earlier post on the subject, I have come to appreciate some of the possibilities of Categories, at least in theory. So, this morning I decided to categorize the forty or so articles on writers which I created or to which I made major contributions, having seen several suitable Categories show up in my Watchlist for similar articles. To start with,  I wanted to know what categories have already been created for writers and journalists. For example, I saw a category for for "Argentine writers" (the article on Borges I think). Does this mean I should also create a category for Uruguayan, Mexican, and Chilean writers (I wrote up a couple) even though such categories would have one or two entries?  However, there doesn't seem to be any comprehensive, hierarchical index of categories. [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] should serve this function, but it is woefully 
>  incomplete. [[Category:Main page]] is even worse. So, I turned to 
> 
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Categories&article=Lists_of_articles_by_category 
> 
> which is an alphabetical list of categories, but the first five hundred only range from ".hack" to "British cheeses", suggesting that already on the order of eight to ten thousand categories (!!!) have been created. Obviously this page huge can't be used for looking up existing categories, if only because it would place a tremendous burden on the servers. A random selection from just the first 500: 
> 
> * 1983 albums
> * 24-hour television news channels
> * AHL Trophies and Awards
> * Aerosmith albums
> * Airports of the United Arab Emirates
> * Art galleries and museums in Ohio
> * Belgian cuisine
> * Boston Bruins players
> 
> What can possibly be the use of such narrow categories with only a handful of entries? Shouldn't we be aiming for broad categories (ie, albums, tv stations, awards, airports, museums, cuisines, atheletes)? 
> 
> In any case, my only option for writers appears to be to add categories on an ad hoc basis, and that exactly is what seems to be happening across the entire encyclopedia. Turning to opera, for example, a topic which I have worked a lot on, I see on [[Category:Opera_singers]] that the following categories have been created:
> 
> Category:Baritone opera singers, 
> Category:Bass opera singers, 
> Category:Contraltos (opera singers), 
> Category:Mezzo-sopranos (opera singers), 
> Category:Sopranos (opera singers), 
> Category:Tenors (opera singers)
> 
> They aren't even consistently labelled! It is entirely possible, perhaps probable that someone will come along and create "Category:Contraltos opera singers" "Category:Tenors". Each has only one entry (tenor has two), indicating that they were created on a strictly ad hoc basis with no effort made to track down all the articles for a given category.
> 
> I realize Categories are very new and the system will evolve. I am also a big fan of Wikipedia's self-organizing characteristics and I don't want to sound like a control freak. However, it seems to me that Categories will only be useful if the system is implemented in a thoughtful way. At the very least, it should be compulsory to add new categories to [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] or [[Category:Main page]], so that they can be referenced and evaluated by other editors. Better yet would be to have some kind of vetting procedure for introducing new categories. But given the number of categories now in use, it seems that the genie is out of the bottle and that this is all just wishful thinking. 
> 
> 
> V.