[WikiEN-l] Hello

[Parker Peters]

On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Here are some examples, my main argument and a proposal:
>
> When I began contributing to Wikipedia, there was a Category ³Suicides².
> If
> a person¹s article stated they committed suicide, the category, ³Suicides²
> would be included. If this person had committed suicide by using a
> firearm,
> the Category, ³Suicides by firearm² would be also be included. In this
> case
> the Category, ³Deaths by firearm² would also be included. In this way, the
> researcher can call up, individually, all persons in the encyclopedia who
> had committed suicide. Then, if they chose, they could also call up
> separate
> lists of those who committed suicide by firearm, and a separate list of
> all
> persons who died by firearm. This was wonderful for the researcher.


And yes, this makes sense.

We've had other writers pulling the same nonsense in other topics in the
past: fictional vampires listed as fictional vampires but not mythological
creatures, articles regarding aspects and criticism of the Koran being
included in the Koran category but with editors insisting that including it
in the "Islam" category as well being redundant, various grades of
conspiracy theory put into one group but not another, and so on.

A square is a rectangle, is also a regular polyhedron, is also a polyhedron,
and so on, and each of these categories applies in its own way. I think the
same thing is true for categories, the more categories something is listed
under (as long as they are relevant), the better and redundancy (the idea
that one category's listings are also completely encompassed by another) is
not a bad thing, it only indicates a tighter degree of search.

Parker