User:TK/SandboxCat

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Here we go kids!

Please, anything too controversial, use the email to discuss first!

Not trying to start off by picking a fight, but I just want to be clear - just what about categorization would be too controversial for public consumption? Any suggestions about how to organize things should be pretty mundane, boring stuff right? Aziraphale 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) <-more than one addition to the page...

Contents

Category Organization Ideas

  1. Category:Everything-->Category:Geography-->Category:United States-->Category:California

that is for articles about natural wonders in Calif, right?

"geography" is actually an interesting category. If we're going to have it be the uber-category of ALL things geographical, I'd sub-categorize a little more brutally than you posit above. At a minimum, I'd have a cat:countries between cat:geog and cat:us, just for cleanliness of cats. Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

# of categories

number of cats seems to be on a lot of people's minds. Do we want to rule that a cat is fine if we believe it will eventually be full of stuff, or do we want to have a min # of articles before a cat should exist? So, for example, if only 3 books would be listed as cat:steamy hawt romance then we leave them in cat:book until there are five of them? Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • As to the example, no problem, as I would have already deleted them! :p -- But that is a good question. What do Geo and DanH think? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

reorganization of categories

I've written this elsewhere... in fact *goes looking through his sent folder* nah, can't find it. Ok, so here's what I think:

A lot of the basic re-categorization can be done by people like me once a couple of rules are determined. As in, once we settle the question above about reducing the # of categories, for large swaths of them responsible people like myself can simply do the pruning. The complicated part, imo, is the large categories with multiple sub-categories that require significant tuning. For example, take a look at the mess that is cat:religion_____, cat:bible______, cat:christian_____, and cat:conservative_______. There's a whole lot of over-lapping throughout those cats. For those, given that they're the foundation of CP, I recommend a guiding force of one or more sysop/admin types (TK, Ed Poor, whoever) leading a larger group of ... whoever. My first suggestion would be the homeschool students, but they aren't mine to command sooo *shrug*

Once the heads of the group map the actual category breakdown (decide what should exist and what shouldn't) the students/volunteers/whoever go through each article and categorize it appropriately. The group heads would spot-check their work for accuracy, providing constructive feedback as necessary.

Other than that, there's some individual work that needs doing that defies easy categorization. By that I mean, there are probably thousands or articles that, simply, could be categorized better. As we go through each category, article by article, we can keep an eye out for those. Aziraphale 12:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

  • I believe the above you were looking for was actually in an email to me. On this page, mainly Geo, Dan and I will post the decisions on categories, after consulting with the others via IM and email. Also taking into consideration those editors I emailed about this page. Andy asked me to get the ball rolling, and I am more prone to speed than too much deliberation. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:32, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
A lot of the decisions will be minor and shouldn't need much time or deliberation. This project is not necessarily as large as it looks and could fall into place quickly once the first decisions are made. Learn together 16:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Random question(s) re:categories

What's up with cat:biographies? I used it sometimes when I was at a loss for where to put someone. Should every biography of a person ALSO be in cat:bio? Or, should every cat that contains descriptions of people simply be a sub-cat of cat:bio? So, for example, cat:physicists would be a sub-cat of cat:scientists, which would be a sub-cat of cat:biographies? Aziraphale 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) <- see, what did I tell you?'

There are are a lot of broad categories which need refining and I'm happy to help with this. I think most people should be in cat:bio but bear in mind that they can be in multiple categories so Isaac Newton is a mathematician and a physicist (probably a few other things as well) but not just a scientist. My contributions have been to put people in narrow categories wherever possible and then categorize that category as part of something much larger. I think Sports People is a good example. No-one should be in the root category, they should be at least one level down so Tiger Woods may be a Golfer but does he need to be an American Golfer? The number of golfers is probably quite small but soccer players might be quite large as it is an international sport so they should probably be subdivided. BrianCo 17:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
I recommend sub-categories be used under biographies. So Charles Dickens would show up under "Authors" and not under "Authors" and "Biographies". I hope this makes sense to everyone. Learn together 16:14, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
  • "Sports People" sounds awful Wikipedian and world-viewish to me. What is wrong with the more common sense "Athletes"? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:08, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, thats a bit of a diversion from the point I was making, but to me athletes are in a narrow sense confined to running, jumping and throwing - basically track and field events - whereas there are a lot of sports people that I wouldn't categorize as "athletes". BrianCo 08:02, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Personally I could go either way. It's your call TK if you think it would be better. Learn together 16:14, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

To wildcat, or not to wildcat...

Hey TK,

Just to clarify (come on, we haven't done one of these in WEEKS, be calm, it shall pass ;)), I should not move (as an example) the one article in cat:canadian films to cat:movies until directed to do so, correct? No problem if that's the case, just making sure. :) Aziraphale 00:22, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-beating the greasy spot in the driveway where once there was a dead horse...

  • No, that means something like that go ahead, something that requires yet another new cat, don't.  :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:09, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
ooOOOoooohhh. That's teh awesome. :D Aziraphale 01:15, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-teh...

Deleted Pages

I have found several uncategorized pages with {{deleted page}} on them. This template should have a special category attached so that they no longer appear in the uncategorized list. BrianCo 10:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I've been trying to note each of those that I find here: User:Aziraphale/categories so that TK can deal with them; perhaps I should move that list here, TK? Happy to do so, but will wait for your approval. Aziraphale 11:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-list-y...
  • Perhaps fixing and the like should stay where they are? Deleted pages are not supposed to show up in searches...that's the point of deleting them, eh. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 11:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Well there's deleted, and then there are the pages that were wiped but then protected to prevent them from being created again. I have no clue how those interact with searches. Aziraphale 11:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-not Alicia Silverstone, but clueless nevertheless...
Azi's right. Those with the {{deleted page}} template still show up in searches and appear in the list of uncategorized pages. BrianCo 14:38, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, some do and some don't. Many of the ones I've pointed out to TK have been removed / fixed, and others were removed by another sysop (I don't know who it was) who found them independently. I need to clean up my list so it's clearer which ones are left - feel free to add the ones that you've found. You'll see that I keep several lists: one for deleted articles that need to redirect, another for protected articles that need categorizing, and so on. Aziraphale 15:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-listmania!

(unindent) My list has now been purged, only articles that still need redirected show on the list. Aziraphale 15:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <-aw yeah...

Biographies

http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Biographies

What goes into this section seems very arbitrary. Since it seems rather redundant, and almost anything that would go into it could go into some other category (i.e. Military leaders, Politicians, etc.), I propose we do away with it. DanH 01:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I think Biographies is useful - but the other categories (i.e. Military leaders, Politicians, etc.) should be part of it. Individual articles should not have the Category:Biographies attached, they should always belong to a subcategory. BrianCo 03:00, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
I second that ;-) Learn together 16:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
fwiw, I do think it has a purpose as a place for people to categorize an article that they aren't sure how otherwise to categorize. That said, I wouldn't cry if it was disbanded. Aziraphale 01:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT) <-spilled the milk...
Hey, speaking of worthless deletable categories, what about the women category? It seems odd to have this for the same reasons as a biography category. They can all be put somewhere else. Bohdan 02:00, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
TK was telling me it may be important for students doing reports on women. And since category relationships can be interdimensional, you could have a subcategory of, say, "Women Authors" under Women and the same subcategory under "Authors". It's just a question of how we want to design it. I would see women, if we decided to keep that category, as having no individual entries, but a number of sub-categories. Learn together 16:04, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*clears throat* ahem...

As of 11:15pm pacific time (aka GMT -8:00), there are 38 uncategorized articles, all of which require sysop intervention. By the time I finish typing this, it probably won't be true anymore, but what the hell. heheheheheh

Thanks to the others who slogged through 3100+ uncategorized articles in about 17 days. Not quite as fast as I'd hoped, but still not too shabby. BrianCo in particular really took a big chunk of them down.

So... yeah. Moving on. :) Aziraphale 02:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT) <-who realizes there will always be more...

CONGRATS! :D --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Questionable Categories (Suggest Deleting)

  • Gospel of Luke
  • Wars France Won
  • Wars France Lost Learn together 09:48, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Historical People Learn together 03:33, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Duplicating or Similar

  • "Political people" and "Politicians" (Political people is being used; Politicians is asking to please use Political people)
This one was mine - I'm not at all married to the names, but I was torn over including people who were involved in politics but not actual candidates, vs. those who hold/run for office. Is this an unimportant distinction? (That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know the answer) Aziraphale 13:18, 3 August 2007 (EDT) <-ponderous...
  • "Sport" and "Sports" (Sports is being used; Sport is asking to please use Sports)
  • "Probability and Statistics" and "Statistics" (You are aware of this one Terry)

Here's a Weird One For You...

So now I'm just sort of policing the new articles as they pop in the uncategorized list. Most of them are new articles, but every now and then one comes up that's a few days, even a couple weeks, old. I check the history and, as far as I can tell, it isn't a case of their category tag being deleted. They were uncategorized, they still are, but only with a recent edit do they show up in the list. Anybody else seen this? Thoughts on how it happens? Aziraphale 17:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT) <-stumped...

Political People

Out.

Instead > Public Officials, Elected Officials, Appointed Officials.....any thoughts on these? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Sports People

Out.

Instead > SPORTS, Athletes, Notable Male Athlets, Notable Female Athletes, Sport Teams.......

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm down with cat:political people going away. I think the suggested replacements will work for now, although cat:Public Officials seems redundant to the other two. Eventually CP will have enough articles to break these out to "US Senators" etc... Aziraphale 12:53, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
  • A "Public Official" could be the over-arching cat. Some public officals are elected, others like the Secretary of State (say) are appointed, as are Supreme Court judges, as is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom... --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:39, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
How do we handle political people who are not elected officials, but are still political - a Cindy Sheehan for instance? Learn together 22:13, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*Cindy wouldn't be a political person, but an Political Activist. Perhaps "United States Political Activists"?

  • As Ed Poor has stated, some articles, that do not fit into the main ones, can do without categories. In other words, not every article must have one. But in the example you gave, I would say Political Activists, or Traitors would do. :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:48, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
I find it hard to believe that an article can't be categorized in a general fashion into SOME category or other. It may happen, but honestly I think the only problem would be a (temporary, you'd hope) lack of robustness in a cat. Aziraphale 10:29, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
  • How do you want to handle the re-alignment? Should I just go about deleting cats and then we can go find the orphans? Or would you prefer me pasting here the articles that linked to the deleted cats, along with where they should go? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:28, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of "US"

Will the admin team come to a decision on "US" vs "United States" and "UK" vs "United Kingdom?" There's a ton of both, and a smattering of "US" vs "U.S." Settling this, along with the capitalization issue (which I think is settled, right?), will give me/us something substantial to chew on while you deliberate on other subjects. :) Aziraphale 12:53, 7 August 2007 (EDT) <-Chewy!

  • One would have to know (for certain) if the shortened style should actually be U (period) K/S (period)or just UK/US. That is why I think we should only use the proper names. I asked the Grand Master of the place, and he didn't care, left it to me. As I type this, I am checking with Mr. Wiki and another two or three...hold on....will give news flash in a mo. Da Da Da Da! We have it!
  • For Categories, it shall be United States and United Kingdom, as well as for articles, and the first instances of them in the articles, thereafter, in the same article, we can use the U.S. and U.K. deal, with the periods, but not wiki-linked! Example, first use would be: United States (U.S.) Hooray! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Category Addition

Under 'United States', I would like to add a sub-category of 'United States government'. If you concur, please give your ok so I can start this creation. Thanks Learn together 01:02, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi Learn Together - this category already exists, although it is currently cat:US Government. It has 114 members, and we need to go through them and rename to "United States..." at which time you'll have your category. :D Aziraphale 02:26, 11 August 2007 (EDT) <-voila...

Change for Category "United States Senators"

I believe the "United States Senators" Category should point to the "Member of Congress" Category just as US Senators does. Currently the "United States Senators" Category is locked so an admin will need to add it.

Also, there are about 10 picture or so under the Category "US Senators". If these are locked as well, they will need to be changed to the "United States Senators" Category.

I'd imagine we will also see something similar with Representatives, although I haven't looked yet.

Thanks Learn together 01:45, 24 August 2007 (EDT)


We need to have it read, Azi correct me if I am wrong, "Members of the Congress of the United States" or the like. US Senators needs to become United States Senators. "Political People" needs to be deleted as well. Should I just do it, or should be add the new cats using that as our list? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:15, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Is there a mass move feature? Could, say, 50 items under a category be moved to a different category with the touch of a button? I was under the impression we needed to do category changes by hand in each article. Learn together 02:30, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
If there IS a mass move feature I'm going to be irritated. ;) As for "Members of Congress ____" this is another example of something I was talking to you about earlier. Given the site's focus, wouldn't it be an elegant solution to assume a reference is to the United States unless specified? I know, there's been a debate in the past because there are conservatives from other countries here. On the other hand, look at the logo. :p
If a presumption of US-centricity is not going to fly, then "Members of the Congress of the United States" would probably work.
Learn Together - all images seem to be locked, which is why cat:U.S. Senators, cat:US Judges, and cat:US Representative still exist.  :) They'll go away eventually. As for "Member of Congress" sub-cat, I have to say I'm not a fan of it. Won't it just contain two sub-sub cats (Senators and Reps) plus the VP? Seems like an overly-small sub-cat to me. That said, I'm not particularly invested in that opinion, so if y'all want it I'll go along. Aziraphale 10:23, 24 August 2007 (EDT) <-waka waka, an oldie but a goodie...
Thanks to the work of 16 year old Chip Peterson, all of the US Senators have been moved to United States Senators. We still have the locked ones, which turned out to be 11 of them, and the 10 pictures. I'm going to start a new heading of "Things for TK to do" since we don't have permissions to finish the job and it looks very unsightly to have it only partially completed. Learn together 11:11, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Should I just move the stuff at User:Aziraphale/categories to this page for simplicity? As for things being unsightly, I figure it's kind of like the old adage about sausage: nobody should watch it being made, but the end product is delicious. ;) Aziraphale 12:03, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
I'll be happy to see the finished product. ;-) Personally I recommend "To Do" lists with checkoffs when completed. If we can all see a list of the category changes planned and in progress, then you may be able to get more assistance than just being applauded when you're done. ;-) Learn together 12:23, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Things for TK to Do

  • Move 11 "protected" senators from Category "US Senators" to "United States Senators"
  • Move the 10 protected pictures from "US Senators" to "United States Senators"
  • Put either "Member of Congress" or "United States Government" as category in "United States Senators"
  • Remove Category "US Senators"
  • Decide if "Liberal Bias" or "Liberal bias" should be the category name; remove other category (forgive me if a decision on capitalization naming conventions has already taken place -- I'm not aware of any specific decision)

LINKS? I mean the "protected" Senators! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:18, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:US_Senators Learn together 01:38, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I've tried to clean-up my to-do list. Everything here is in need of attention from somebody who can mess with protected pages. In a change from my previous request, please go ahead and delete what you're done with. I realize now that it just leaves a messy page to keep the done ones around. Thanks! Aziraphale 02:34, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Protected Articles Needing Categories


American Government Homework Four -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
American Government Homework One -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
American Government Homework Three -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
American Government Homework Two -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
American Government Lecture Four -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
American Government Lecture Three -> cat:Homeschool Curriculum
Andrew Schlafly and Phyllis Schlafly - both need cat:US Jurists changed to cat:United States Jurists. TK mentioned we don't call them Jurists. Suits me fine, whatever they're being called should be preceded by "United States." :D
Boy Scouts of America - needs cat:U.S. Government Chartered Organizations changed to cat:United States etc etc...
Confederate States Constitution - needs cat:U.S. History changed to cat:United States History
Conservapedia Talk/Archive 1 - dunno, cat:conservapedia? sure.
Duncan Hunter - category should be cat:United States Representatives
Emancipation Proclamation - needs cat:U.S. History changed to cat:United States History
Essay:Conservative Intellectualism - personally, I'd go for cat:articles proposed for deletion
Gay - cat:Homosexuality
List of liberal Wikipedians - cat:Liberalism, cat:Wikipedia, cat:WTF is this even doing here? :p
Nancy Pelosi - category should be cat:United States Representatives
USS Samuel Gompers (AD-37) -> please change category to cat:United States Navy Auxiliary Ships and cat:Destroyer Tenders. For that matter, I don't know why it's protected...?
The Feds -> cat:articles proposed for deletion
The National Academies of the United States - needs cat:U.S. Government Chartered Organizations changed to cat:United States etc etc...
United States National Academy of Sciences - needs cat:U.S. Government Chartered Organizations changed to cat:United States etc etc...


--- all of the media in cat:US Judges -> move to cat:United States Judges or cat:United States Supreme Court
--- all of the media in cat:US Representative -> move to cat:United States Representatives

Template-related issues


template:Nb sl english premier -> changed so that it puts cat:United Kingdom Soccer on articles instead of cat:UK soccer?
template:caselaw -> changed so that it puts cat:United States Supreme Court Cases.
template:USstates needs to be edited to categorize to cat:States of the United States.

Miscellaneous Article Problems I've Encountered


Association of politically active christians ->needs renamed to all first-letter caps
Judicial branch -> same deal

dum dee doo... just pinging the ole to-do list... dum dee doo... Aziraphale 17:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT) <-M-O-O-N, that spells "categorization!"

Remove Category: Cat:NFL coaches (Has been moved to National Football League Coaches) Learn together 13:31, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Remove Category: Cat:Radio shows (Has been moved to Cat:Radio Shows) Learn together 03:24, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Order in the court!

I looked over this page and I don't think it's been answered anywhere officially. In what order should categories be placed? Bohdan and I couldn't find anything in the MoS or Guidlines, and Andy deferred to our better judgement. We had two options (though there may be more):

  • Alphabetically: This has the advantage of being non-contraversial; it either is or is not alphabetical. It has the disadvantage of being less descriptive.
  • Importance order: This has the advantage of pointing towards the most important category first, which gives the reader the best information. It has the disadvantage that new users might not know what's more important (and old users too, I guess). Additionally, you will most certainly come into conflicts as to which category is more important.

I know this isn't a democracy, but I vote alphabetical :) Jazzman831 22:14, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

I vote importance. Bohdan 22:22, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
TK says here that it's in order of importance. Have fun :) Jazzman831 23:34, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
Wow, even my OCD has limits, you guys have fun wrangling that little gem of a job. :P Aziraphale 00:46, 25 August 2007 (EDT) <-bleh!
I vote right now it's not necessarily that important. It is possible for us to bog ourselves down in rules that shouldn't necessarily be applied. Besides that, we don't want to wear out Aziraphale ;-) Learn together 03:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • What? You're the one who told me it should be in order of importance! What is going on? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:17, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I dunno about Bohdan, but I haven't edited any categories. I thought that your post on the Romania page was one of your "commands not suggestions"; I must have misunderstood what you meant by that post. Let's start over :)
In what order should we place categories on a page? Jazzman831 19:03, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Other than OCD, is there a big difference in what order they are placed on the page? I mean the whole idea of categories is a hierarchical means of searching, and that is not effected, in search by the order on the page, but the manner we categorize them, the order we place them into the cats, no? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:49, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I told you to do them in order of importance? Wow. I must have been drunk, which is weird because I don't drink. :/ Seriously, if I said that I don't remember it, and I disagree with myself now. I agree with what you just said just now, I don't think it matters. Ok, it matters a little, but not enough that we need to enforce a policy about it. Aziraphale 20:35, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I think this is a semantical catch. I have never considered the order of placement on a particular article, and what I meant was the general hierarchy of the cats. Now, how can we deal with that stupid "Political People" category? I would like to do something with it tonight! Thoughts? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:41, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, building bookshelves this weekend so I'm not around much. I'll try to noodle on it while I paint. :p Aziraphale 13:10, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

See categories: United States Government | United States Congress | United States Elected Officials | United States of America --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 05:34, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Super Categories

  • What to do with categories United States and United States of America? Which one to keep? The proper title is USA, not US, and the main article is "United States of America". Also, look around the US Govt categories, I expanded and gave a logical progression to them, from United States, to United States Government, to give you an idea of the hierarchy we need....please give thoughts and suggestions! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 06:43, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for the uber-delayed response, I didn't really notice that the question got posted. I think leaving it as "United States" is fine, just going from my gut I feel like it gets used in official ways all the time (speeches, proclamations, etc...)
As for government hierarchy... seems fine to me. That's definitely one of those situations where an interested party should grab it and run - I'm no government expert, so I shouldn't be the one making those calls. Yes, yes, I did make those calls. ;) But only as a stop-gap until somebody with some expertise gets in there and fixes it up all purty-like. Aziraphale 02:24, 4 September 2007 (EDT) <-yee haw!

Roman Commanders

As I started to change some of these from Military Commanders, I was thinking that Roman Commanders is not quite the same as Roman Military Commanders. One can be a commander and not necessarily be a military commander. Learn together 14:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Yikes. If there's really a difference, categorize 'em. It's not like we only have X number of cats. Aziraphale 14:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT) <-becoming the "old cat lady..."
I'll wait and make sure it's ok with TK first. I propose shifting them all to Roman Military Commanders and then removing the category Roman Commanders. BTW I am also assuming that being a commander implies having fought in a battle or campaign of some note. At least that is how I am applying it. Learn together 14:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh absolutely. Sorry, I always sort of assume there's an asterix next to everything I say that indicates "this is one man's opinion." :D Aziraphale 14:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT) *...
Hey, you're the guy doing all the work ;-) I was just saying thanks, now I'll clear it with TK. Learn together 15:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
heh, thanks. :) Clearly that's not true, as you're here asking about some categorization that you're doing. ;) Your level of detail is exactly where I draw the line; if I don't know something about the subject I'm not going to try and do any fine tuning, so your expertise is crucial (you, and a thousand others eventually). Aziraphale 15:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT) <-rough tuning, on the other hand...

State Capitals

Anybody have a problem with me calling US state capitals simply cat:State Capitals? Otherwise cat:State Capitals of the United States...?

What have we done with the others? United States ____ whatever? I dont know if that is important to keep consistent or not. To avoid cumbersome language, could we use U.S. State Capitals? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:35, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

We went with cat:States of the United States, because it sounds / looks better than cat:United States States. So, strict consistency would be cat:State Capitals of the United States, but I again bring up my theory that, with the focus of the site and all, there's next-to-no chance that anyone would be confused by just cat:State Capitals. Aziraphale 02:41, 4 September 2007 (EDT) <-a dog person, believe it or not...

Next Steps

So I'm almost done with the US/UK expansion thingy. The next logical task to me is to get all categories into All Caps(tm) and, while I'm going through the list, de-red link all categories that need it. Is there some other priority I should know about? Aziraphale 16:54, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Just for you, TK - done. :D Aziraphale 12:38, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Category Form

Has is been decided that categories with multiple words will use capitalization? If so here are two that should be changed:

  • Category:Units of measure --> Category:Units of Measure
  • Category:Programming languages --> Category:Programming Languages

Please let me know if I am understanding this correctly or if I am confused.Learn together 13:18, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Hi Learn Together,
Categories use all caps. As far as I know, there's no "easy" way to make these changes. What you do is go into each article under "Units of measure" and change the their cat to "Units of Measure." When the last article is changed, cat:Units of measure will go away.
If there IS an easy way, that'd be awesome, but I asked on the Mediawiki forums and the only solutions sounded dangerous and/or complicated, as they involve code-based solutions applied to the database. And apparently, the known "solutions" are also known to be buggy. So, I think we're doing it the old-fashioned way.
I get in the mood every week or so and do a few, but feel free to pick the ones that stand out to you and take 'em out. :D Aziraphale 15:04, 14 September 2007 (EDT) <-cats and dogs, living together... mass hysteria!
If that meant something, I missed it...? :p Aziraphale 01:01, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

"cats and dogs, living together... mass hysteria!" --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:49, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Chemical Engineering

I hope it's ok that I made a category for chemical engineering in which we would put terms on, eh, chemical engineering. It should be a subcat of Engineering. Cool beans? HelpJazz 23:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Yup, you done good. I added Chem Engine to Engineering. Don't know about Engineering being a sub of Technology....we need Azi to give his input! --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 06:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
I think Engineering under cat:technology is fine. Mightn't it also be a subcat of cat:science? I'll leave that to an expert, just a suggestion. Aziraphale 16:41, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Well we engineers have quite a rivalry with the scientists (at least at my school), so I would argue no :) HelpJazz 16:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://conservapedia.com/User:TK/SandboxCat"
Personal tools