Mistipedia talk:Categorization Guidelines - Revision history

Gonzoron at 04:05, 29 December 2010

2010-12-29T04:05:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:05, 28 December 2010
Line 93:		Line 93:

	The method in the madness is roughly this: [[NPC]] first and [[Race]] and [[Nationality]] second last and last respectively. [[Society]] if any, preceded by rank in that society (hence Umbra followed by FoS). In game [[profession]] preceded by specialisation(s) in the profession (hence Historian before Professor). Social class if any, preceded by rank in that class (hence Lord before Aristocrat). Game mechanics base class(es), preceded by any prestige classes (hence the FoS prestige class needs to be added and prior to illusionist). The 'preceded' bit is about giving the most impressive title, achievement, etc. first. [[User:cure]]		The method in the madness is roughly this: [[NPC]] first and [[Race]] and [[Nationality]] second last and last respectively. [[Society]] if any, preceded by rank in that society (hence Umbra followed by FoS). In game [[profession]] preceded by specialisation(s) in the profession (hence Historian before Professor). Social class if any, preceded by rank in that class (hence Lord before Aristocrat). Game mechanics base class(es), preceded by any prestige classes (hence the FoS prestige class needs to be added and prior to illusionist). The 'preceded' bit is about giving the most impressive title, achievement, etc. first. [[User:cure]]




			==Summarized==
			OK, I tried to summarize this discussion on the Mistipedia:Categorization_Guidelines page. Remember this can all be editted, changed, debated futher etc, but I thought it a good idea to put up at least a draft...

Cure: /* Category order */

2010-09-09T01:09:55Z

Category order

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 8 September 2010
Line 89:		Line 89:

	[[User:Cure]] had mentioned an order he was using for the NPC categories somewhere, but I can't find it. What was it? and does anyone else have thoughts on this subject? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		[[User:Cure]] had mentioned an order he was using for the NPC categories somewhere, but I can't find it. What was it? and does anyone else have thoughts on this subject? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

			For example: [[Lord Balfour de Casteelle]] has the following Categories: [[NPC]] \| [[The Umbra (society)]] \| [[The Fraternity of Shadows]] \| [[Arcane Loremaster]] \| [[Historian]] \| [[Ravenloft Loremaster]] \| [[Professor]] \| [[University of Dementlieu]] \| [[Dementlieuse Lord]] \| [[Aristocrat]] \| [[Illusionist]] \| [[Wizard]] \| [[Human]] \| [[Dementlieuse]]

			The method in the madness is roughly this: [[NPC]] first and [[Race]] and [[Nationality]] second last and last respectively. [[Society]] if any, preceded by rank in that society (hence Umbra followed by FoS). In game [[profession]] preceded by specialisation(s) in the profession (hence Historian before Professor). Social class if any, preceded by rank in that class (hence Lord before Aristocrat). Game mechanics base class(es), preceded by any prestige classes (hence the FoS prestige class needs to be added and prior to illusionist). The 'preceded' bit is about giving the most impressive title, achievement, etc. first. [[User:cure]]

Nerit: /* Category Names */

2010-05-26T18:38:05Z

Category Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 26 May 2010
Line 82:		Line 82:
	=== Category Names ===		=== Category Names ===
	We've been using singular names for categories. I think I started it. But now I'm not sure if it's correct. Wikipedia uses plurals. Using singulars creates an inconsistency in stuff like [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] vs. [[:Category:Location]] (why "Location" for one, but "Location'''''s'''''" for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		We've been using singular names for categories. I think I started it. But now I'm not sure if it's correct. Wikipedia uses plurals. Using singulars creates an inconsistency in stuff like [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] vs. [[:Category:Location]] (why "Location" for one, but "Location'''''s'''''" for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
			:Hoooo, boy. My head right now? Stuck in a [[w:Matryoshka doll\| Matryoshka doll]]. I remember getting confused on plurals/singulars when working on other wikis. I wonder, does it have to do with the set/topic issue? Barovia is A Location, yes? But Barovia also belongs in a box with All Locations. Hmm. We must assume that all Categories are ''made'' to fit more than one sub-category or page, yes? So perhaps plural is the way to go? --[[User:Nerit\|Nerit]] 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

	==Category order==		==Category order==

D'Ysmaul: /* Pages vs. Categories */

2010-05-24T22:51:54Z

Pages vs. Categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 24 May 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Is this also perhaps part of the problem with the Societies that I mentioned above. By forcing [[The Kargat]] to be [[:Category:The Kargat]] are we messing up the distinction that wikipedia would make between the '''topic''' category [[:Category:The Kargat]] and the '''set''' category [[:Category:Members of the Kargat]]? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this also perhaps part of the problem with the Societies that I mentioned above. By forcing [[The Kargat]] to be [[:Category:The Kargat]] are we messing up the distinction that wikipedia would make between the '''topic''' category [[:Category:The Kargat]] and the '''set''' category [[:Category:Members of the Kargat]]? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	Your metaphor lost me, but if I'm reading you right, you're saying that combined category/pages should be restricted to set-categories where what's said in the category is true of any page in the category. (And that, by extension, the text in [[:Category:Church of Ezra]] and stuff like that would be separated into its own page, yes?) Because that makes sense to me. [[User:D'Ysmaul\|~~D'~~Ysmaul]] 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		Your metaphor lost me, but if I'm reading you right, you're saying that combined category/pages should be restricted to set-categories where what's said in the category is true of any page in the category. (And that, by extension, the text in [[:Category:Church of Ezra]] and stuff like that would be separated into its own page, yes?) Because that makes sense to me. [[User:D'Ysmaul\|d'Ysmaul]] 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== Subcategorization levels ===		=== Subcategorization levels ===

D'Ysmaul: /* Pages vs. Categories */

2010-05-24T22:51:32Z

Pages vs. Categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 24 May 2010
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:(to follow the metaphor, it's ok to staple the page about goblins to outside of the goblin box, but we don't want the page on [[The Twisting]] copied onto every "The Twisting" label stuck on things related to "The Twisting", do we?)		:(to follow the metaphor, it's ok to staple the page about goblins to outside of the goblin box, but we don't want the page on [[The Twisting]] copied onto every "The Twisting" label stuck on things related to "The Twisting", do we?)

			Is this also perhaps part of the problem with the Societies that I mentioned above. By forcing [[The Kargat]] to be [[:Category:The Kargat]] are we messing up the distinction that wikipedia would make between the '''topic''' category [[:Category:The Kargat]] and the '''set''' category [[:Category:Members of the Kargat]]? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	~~Is this also perhaps part of the problem with the Societies that~~ I ~~mentioned above. By forcing [[The Kargat]] to be [[:Category:The Kargat]] are we messing up the distinction that wikipedia would make between the '''topic~~''' category ~~[[:Category:The Kargat]] and~~ the ~~'''set'''~~ category [[:Category:~~Members~~ of ~~the Kargat~~]]? -- [[User:~~Gonzoron~~\|~~Gonzoron~~]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		Your metaphor lost me, but if I'm reading you right, you're saying that combined category/pages should be restricted to set-categories where what's said in the category is true of any page in the category. (And that, by extension, the text in [[:Category:Church of Ezra]] and stuff like that would be separated into its own page, yes?) Because that makes sense to me. [[User:D'Ysmaul\|D'Ysmaul]] 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== Subcategorization levels ===		=== Subcategorization levels ===

D'Ysmaul: /* Subcategorization levels */

2010-05-24T21:10:42Z

Subcategorization levels

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:10, 24 May 2010
Line 71:		Line 71:
	I submit that from a usability perspective, I would expect to see the inn listed under both [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] '''AND''' [[:Category:Locations in the Village of Barovia]]. I'm not sure about [[:Category:Location]]. It's so broad that the full list is not so usable, IMHO. Thoughts?		I submit that from a usability perspective, I would expect to see the inn listed under both [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] '''AND''' [[:Category:Locations in the Village of Barovia]]. I'm not sure about [[:Category:Location]]. It's so broad that the full list is not so usable, IMHO. Thoughts?

			:As the person who's been doing the most with the wiki in the last week or so, my sort-of convention working with [[:Category:Location]] was to get things off of the main [[:Category:Location]] page. When categories break across multiple pages, the subcategories break too, which makes using them to search by a PITA.

			:Once stuff's in a subcategory, I'm fine with seeing [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] '''and''' [[:Category:Locations in the Village of Barovia]], because everything in the former set is going to be in the subset. Not sure what my thoughts are on diffusing [[:Category:Locations in _____]], though, so I'll stop here. [[User:D'Ysmaul\|D'Ysmaul]] 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	Most importantly: Do we have to go through this thought process for each major category in [[:Category:Contents]]? Or can we find a broad and useful guideline that covers everything?		Most importantly: Do we have to go through this thought process for each major category in [[:Category:Contents]]? Or can we find a broad and useful guideline that covers everything?

Gonzoron: /* Category Names */

2010-05-24T19:48:53Z

Category Names

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 24 May 2010
Line 78:		Line 78:

	=== Category Names ===		=== Category Names ===
	We've been using singular names for categories. I think I started it. But now I'm not sure if it's correct. Wikipedia uses plurals. Using singulars creates an inconsistency in stuff like [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] vs. [[:Category:Location]] (~~which~~ Location for one, but ~~Locations~~ for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		We've been using singular names for categories. I think I started it. But now I'm not sure if it's correct. Wikipedia uses plurals. Using singulars creates an inconsistency in stuff like [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] vs. [[:Category:Location]] (why "Location" for one, but "Location'''''s'''''" for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	==Category order==		==Category order==

Gonzoron: /* Pages vs. Categories */

2010-05-24T19:45:29Z

Pages vs. Categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:45, 24 May 2010
Line 45:		Line 45:

	=== Pages vs. Categories ===		=== Pages vs. Categories ===
	Yes, we've confronted this before, notably here: [[Category_talk:Goblin]]. But now let's revisit it in terms of [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], and the [[:Category:Har'Akir]] experiment. Personally, I feel that [[The Twisting]] should be a page, not a category. It's a single thing, unlike "vampires", which is a group of things. But how does that mesh with the whole '''set''' vs. '''topic''' categorization thing? In wikipedia terms, [[:Category:The Twisting]] is a fine '''topic''' category, a way to link together things that relate to The Twisting. But in the same ~~what~~ that merging [[:Category:Goblin]] with [[Goblin]] grates on [[User:ChrisNichols]], merging [[:Category:The Twisting]] with [[The Twisting]] grates on me, and I think I finally realize why: because it's a '''topic''' category and not a '''set''' category.		Yes, we've confronted this before, notably here: [[Category_talk:Goblin]]. But now let's revisit it in terms of [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], and the [[:Category:Har'Akir]] experiment. Personally, I feel that [[The Twisting]] should be a page, not a category. It's a single thing, unlike "vampires", which is a group of things. But how does that mesh with the whole '''set''' vs. '''topic''' categorization thing? In wikipedia terms, [[:Category:The Twisting]] is a fine '''topic''' category, a way to link together things that relate to The Twisting. But in the same way that merging [[:Category:Goblin]] with [[Goblin]] grates on [[User:ChrisNichols]], merging [[:Category:The Twisting]] with [[The Twisting]] grates on me, and I think I finally realize why: because it's a '''topic''' category and not a '''set''' category.

	I still think there's value in the the merged category/pages. But can we limit them to only "'''Set'''" categories? Does that make sense to anyone but me?		I still think there's value in the the merged category/pages. But can we limit them to only "'''Set'''" categories? Does that make sense to anyone but me?

Gonzoron: /* Subcategories */

2010-05-24T19:44:50Z

Subcategories

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 24 May 2010
Line 40:		Line 40:

	Here things get even worse: What about categories that are both "'''sets'''" and "'''topics'''"? Here I'm thinking about [[:Category:Gundarakite]]. [[:Category:Society]] was originally entirely full of "boxes" of NPCs. ([[:Category:The_Keepers_of_the_Black_Feather]], for example.) But since the software doesn't discriminate over what can go in a "box," people started using the Societies as "labels" as well. So [[:Category:Gundarakite]] is not a box		Here things get even worse: What about categories that are both "'''sets'''" and "'''topics'''"? Here I'm thinking about [[:Category:Gundarakite]]. [[:Category:Society]] was originally entirely full of "boxes" of NPCs. ([[:Category:The_Keepers_of_the_Black_Feather]], for example.) But since the software doesn't discriminate over what can go in a "box," people started using the Societies as "labels" as well. So [[:Category:Gundarakite]] is not a box
	of NPCs. It's a "box" of things related to Gundarak and/or ~~Gundarkite~~. (this problem surfaced on [[:Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]].) It makes my head hurt.		of NPCs. It's a "box" of things related to Gundarak and/or Gundarkites. (this problem surfaced on [[:Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]].) It makes my head hurt.

	Is there a way to keep the Societies to just groups of people? Or am I being too limiting? Does [[The Grim Fastness]] have as much right to be in [[:Category:The Kargat]] as [[Lady Kazandra]] does? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		Is there a way to keep the Societies to just groups of people? Or am I being too limiting? Does [[The Grim Fastness]] have as much right to be in [[:Category:The Kargat]] as [[Lady Kazandra]] does? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron: OK, I think I'm done tweaking. Have at it! Discuss!! :)

2010-05-24T19:42:14Z

OK, I think I'm done tweaking. Have at it! Discuss!! :)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 24 May 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Let's hash out the Categorization Guidelines once and for all==		==Let's hash out the Categorization Guidelines once and for all==

	OK, we've all been working for a while here, let's see if we've come to any conclusions on Categorization. There are some questions on [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], [[Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]], and elsewhere that need to be resolved. Strap in. This will get deep, nitpicky and bumpy...		OK, we've all been working for a while here, let's see if we've come to any conclusions on Categorization. There are some questions on [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], [[Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]], and elsewhere that need to be resolved. Strap in. This will get deep, nitpicky and bumpy... -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== types of categories ===		=== types of categories ===
	First, let's look at how wikipedia does things, ([[w:Categorization]]) for a bit of comparison:		First, let's look at how wikipedia does things, ([[w:Categorization]]) for a bit of comparison:
	They break up their categories into "Set" and "Topic" categories:		They break up their categories into "'''Set'''" and "'''Topic'''" categories:
	Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic).		'''Topic''' categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic).
	For example, Category:France contains articles relating to the topic France.		For example, Category:France contains articles relating to the topic France.

	Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France		'''Set''' categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France
	contains articles whose subjects are cities in France.		contains articles whose subjects are cities in France.

	Also, there is another layer, "content" and "project" categories:		Also, there is another layer, "content" and "project" categories:

	content categories, intended as part of the encyclopedia, to help readers find articles, based on		'''content''' categories, intended as part of the encyclopedia, to help readers find articles, based on
	features of the subjects of those articles;		features of the subjects of those articles;

	project categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current		'''project''' categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current
	state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages.		state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages.


	Thus far we haven't really made much use of "project" categories here at Mistipedia. There are some like [[:Category:Disambiguation_pages]], but they are mainly automatically inserted by templates that we've copied from elsewhere. So let's restrict the discussion to "content" categories for now.		Thus far we haven't really made much use of "'''project'''" categories here at Mistipedia. There are some like [[:Category:Disambiguation_pages]], but they are mainly automatically inserted by templates that we've copied from elsewhere. So let's restrict the discussion to "'''content'''" categories for now. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== Subcategories ===		=== Subcategories ===
Line 28:		Line 28:
	:(This means you can even create loops if you want. We've seen that if you want to make NPCs into categories, you could put [[:Category:Senmet]] into [[:Category:Anhktepot]] and ALSO put [[:Category:Anhktepot]] into[[:Category:Senmet]]. But consensus seems to be that's a bad idea, and Wikipedia agrees: "Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops.")		:(This means you can even create loops if you want. We've seen that if you want to make NPCs into categories, you could put [[:Category:Senmet]] into [[:Category:Anhktepot]] and ALSO put [[:Category:Anhktepot]] into[[:Category:Senmet]]. But consensus seems to be that's a bad idea, and Wikipedia agrees: "Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops.")

	It seems to me that the "box" metaphor applies better to "set" categories and the "label" metaphor applies better to "topic" categories. (Feel free to disagree). This brings me to what I'm mainly getting at, which is Cure's comment on [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]] regarding the "containment rules", and also the somewhat controversial idea to combine categories and pages.		It seems to me that the "box" metaphor applies better to "'''set'''" categories and the "label" metaphor applies better to "'''topic'''" categories. (Feel free to disagree). This brings me to what I'm mainly getting at, which is Cure's comment on [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]] regarding the "containment rules", and also the somewhat controversial idea to combine categories and pages.

	[[:Category:Monster]] is a box of lots of boxes (of boxes of boxes...). [[Beryl Silvertress]] and [[Axrock]] go in the [[:Category:Dwarven Vampire]] box. The [[:Category:Dwarven Vampire]] box goes in the [[:Category:Vampire]] box (along with all the other vampires). The [[:Category:Vampire]] box goes nicely in the [[:Category:Undead]] box, which is in the [[:Category:Monster]] box. All is well. Beryl and Axrock are Dwarven Vampires, they are Vampires, they are Undead, and they are Monsters. In this simple case, the following "containment rule" applies: "X is in Category:Y if and only if X is a Y. Category:Y is in Category:Z if and only if all Y's are Z's."		[[:Category:Monster]] is a box of lots of boxes (of boxes of boxes...). [[Beryl Silvertress]] and [[Axrock]] go in the [[:Category:Dwarven Vampire]] box. The [[:Category:Dwarven Vampire]] box goes in the [[:Category:Vampire]] box (along with all the other vampires). The [[:Category:Vampire]] box goes nicely in the [[:Category:Undead]] box, which is in the [[:Category:Monster]] box. All is well. Beryl and Axrock are Dwarven Vampires, they are Vampires, they are Undead, and they are Monsters. In this simple case, the following "containment rule" applies: "X is in Category:Y if and only if X is a Y. Category:Y is in Category:Z if and only if all Y's are Z's."


	Now, what of [[:Category:Vampirism]]? that's more of a label (or a topic), isn't it? You can slap it on lots of boxes or pages, anything that's related to Vampirism. But that doesn't mean everything in with that label IS "A Vampirism". For example, [[Vorlog]]s are ''not'' vampires, but they are ''related'' to vampirism. Like [[:Category:Demonology]], it doesn't have a "containment rule." And that's OK, IMHO. The rule for a topic/label is "X is in topic Category:Y if and only if X is related to Y. Set Category:Y is in Topic Category:Z if and only if all Y's are related to Z."		Now, what of [[:Category:Vampirism]]? that's more of a label (or a '''topic'''), isn't it? You can slap it on lots of boxes or pages, anything that's related to Vampirism. But that doesn't mean everything in with that label IS "A Vampirism". For example, [[Vorlog]]s are ''not'' vampires, but they are ''related'' to vampirism. Like [[:Category:Demonology]], it doesn't have a "containment rule." And that's OK, IMHO. The rule for a '''topic'''/label is "X is in '''topic''' Category:Y if and only if X is related to Y. '''Set''' Category:Y is in '''Topic''' Category:Z if and only if all Y's are related to Z."

	so far so good? maybe?		so far so good? maybe?

	Here's where things break down: What of "Set" categories where the Box itself fits in a set, but not everything in the box: [[Meredoth]] is a [[:Category:Necromancer]]. All [[Necromancer]]s are [[Wizard]]s. But [[Wizard]] is in [[:Category:Class]], which is in [[:Category:Game Rule]]. Clearly, Meredoth is a Necromancer and a Wizard. But he's not a class, nor is he a Game Rule. Is this OK? If so, how can we codify it clearly?		Here's where things break down: What of "'''Set'''" categories where the Box itself fits in a set, but not everything in the box: [[Meredoth]] is a [[:Category:Necromancer]]. All [[Necromancer]]s are [[Wizard]]s. But [[Wizard]] is in [[:Category:Class]], which is in [[:Category:Game Rule]]. Clearly, Meredoth is a Necromancer and a Wizard. But he's not a class, nor is he a Game Rule. Is this OK? If so, how can we codify it clearly?

	Here things get even worse: What about categories that are both "sets" and "topics"? Here I'm thinking about [[:Category:Gundarakite]]. [[:Category:Society]] was originally entirely full of "boxes" of NPCs. ([[:Category:The_Keepers_of_the_Black_Feather]], for example.) But since the software doesn't discriminate over what can go in a "box," people started using the Societies as "labels" as well. So [[:Category:Gundarakite]] is not a box		Here things get even worse: What about categories that are both "'''sets'''" and "'''topics'''"? Here I'm thinking about [[:Category:Gundarakite]]. [[:Category:Society]] was originally entirely full of "boxes" of NPCs. ([[:Category:The_Keepers_of_the_Black_Feather]], for example.) But since the software doesn't discriminate over what can go in a "box," people started using the Societies as "labels" as well. So [[:Category:Gundarakite]] is not a box
	of NPCs. It's a "box" of things related to Gundarak and/or Gundarkite. (this problem surfaced on [[:Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]].) It makes my head hurt.		of NPCs. It's a "box" of things related to Gundarak and/or Gundarkite. (this problem surfaced on [[:Category_talk:Ethnic_Group]].) It makes my head hurt.

	Is there a way to keep the Societies to just groups of people? Or am I being too limiting? Does [[The Grim Fastness]] have as much right to be in [[:Category:The Kargat]] as [[Lady Kazandra]] does?		Is there a way to keep the Societies to just groups of people? Or am I being too limiting? Does [[The Grim Fastness]] have as much right to be in [[:Category:The Kargat]] as [[Lady Kazandra]] does? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== Pages vs. Categories ===		=== Pages vs. Categories ===
	Yes, we've confronted this before, notably here: [[Category_talk:Goblin]]. But now let's revisit it in terms of [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], and the [[:Category:Har'Akir]] experiment. Personally, I feel that [[The Twisting]] should be a page, not a category. It's a single thing, unlike "vampires", which is a group of things. But how does that mesh with the whole set vs. topic categorization thing? In wikipedia terms, [[:Category:The Twisting]] is a fine topic category, a way to link together things that relate to The Twisting. But in the same what that merging [[:Category:Goblin]] with [[Goblin]] grates on [[User:ChrisNichols]], merging [[:Category:The Twisting]] with [[The Twisting]] grates on me, and I think I finally realize why: because it's a topic category and not a set category.		Yes, we've confronted this before, notably here: [[Category_talk:Goblin]]. But now let's revisit it in terms of [[Category_talk:The_Twisting]], and the [[:Category:Har'Akir]] experiment. Personally, I feel that [[The Twisting]] should be a page, not a category. It's a single thing, unlike "vampires", which is a group of things. But how does that mesh with the whole '''set''' vs. '''topic''' categorization thing? In wikipedia terms, [[:Category:The Twisting]] is a fine '''topic''' category, a way to link together things that relate to The Twisting. But in the same what that merging [[:Category:Goblin]] with [[Goblin]] grates on [[User:ChrisNichols]], merging [[:Category:The Twisting]] with [[The Twisting]] grates on me, and I think I finally realize why: because it's a '''topic''' category and not a '''set''' category.

	I still think there's value in the the merged category/pages. But can we limit them to only "Set" categories? Does that make sense to anyone but me?		I still think there's value in the the merged category/pages. But can we limit them to only "'''Set'''" categories? Does that make sense to anyone but me?

	:(to follow the metaphor, it's ok to staple the page about goblins to outside of the goblin box, but we don't want the page on [[The Twisting]] copied onto every "The Twisting" label stuck on things related to "The Twisting", do we?)		:(to follow the metaphor, it's ok to staple the page about goblins to outside of the goblin box, but we don't want the page on [[The Twisting]] copied onto every "The Twisting" label stuck on things related to "The Twisting", do we?)


			Is this also perhaps part of the problem with the Societies that I mentioned above. By forcing [[The Kargat]] to be [[:Category:The Kargat]] are we messing up the distinction that wikipedia would make between the '''topic''' category [[:Category:The Kargat]] and the '''set''' category [[:Category:Members of the Kargat]]? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	=== Subcategorization levels ===		=== Subcategorization levels ===
Line 73:		Line 76:

	-- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)		-- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

			=== Category Names ===
			We've been using singular names for categories. I think I started it. But now I'm not sure if it's correct. Wikipedia uses plurals. Using singulars creates an inconsistency in stuff like [[:Category:Locations in Barovia]] vs. [[:Category:Location]] (which Location for one, but Locations for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

	==Category order==		==Category order==