User:TK/SandboxCat

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...

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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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)

• Bookies? :p --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 11:39, 1 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Questionable Categories

• Gospel of Luke
• Wars France Won
• Wars France Lost Learn together 09:48, 3 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 01:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Sports People

Out.

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

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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)

• 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:31, 7 August 2007 (EDT)