[WikiEN-l] Category destruction

[Andrew Gray]

On 02/05/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Categorise on the most granular scale that is useful and practical. If
> > you can't usefully divide a category below a thousand members, then
> > leave it with a thousand members - but most categories can, and
> > should, be broken down well before you reach that point.

> Unfortunately, you're a librarian and you see and think through the obvious
> this way, but try telling that sometimes to the folks at Commons, where, if
> it doesn't fit on a single article page, it CANNOT be a category.

Categorisation on Commons is an *entirely* different kettle of fish,
one which as far as I am aware is in flux right now, and one I don't
even begin to try to pretend to understand. Perhaps this might be
better asked to commons-l?

> The other issue, though, is, do the Wikipedia users use categories to find
> information?  IF this is the case, then they might be built differently from
> how they would be if they were only internally used by editors.  As the
> categories are listed on the article page, I suspect this is the intention,
> but I get argued down on this, no one should ever categorize something for
> the use of the reader, again, especially in Commons, but also in Wikipedia,
> categories don't exist for users.  Then why display them in article space?

On Wikipedia, they exist for readers. I see readers using them. As a
reader, I use them (occasionally).

On Commons, the entire concept of what a user is, what a user is
looking for, is different. I wouldn't like to try to insist both work
in the same way.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk