Mistipedia talk:Categorization Guidelines

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... -- Gonzoron 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

types of categories

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:

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.

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.

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

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

 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.

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. -- Gonzoron 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Subcategories

You can look at categories as either a "box" to put pages in. (or folder, or directory, choose your metaphor). Or you can look at them like a "label" you put on pages. (or tag, or somesuch). In the software, they are implemented as labels. By which I mean: you can put any categories on a page that you want. You aren't bound by boxes. (Azalin can be a Category:Wizard and a Category:Human and a Category:Lich, even though those three categories are distinct. A real piece of paper can't be in multiple boxes, but a wiki page can.)

(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 intoCategory: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.

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, Vorlogs 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?

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 Necromancers are Wizards. 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 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? -- Gonzoron 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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 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?

(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? -- 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. d'Ysmaul 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Subcategorization levels

Wikipedia says:

Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. 
This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) 
then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and
Non-diffusing subcategories below.

We have thus far been a bit inconsistent on this point. I think the key is in the exceptions here, specifically "non-diffusing subcategories. The general idea, as I understand it, of a "diffusing" subcategory is that if Category A is diffused into subcategories A1, A2, A3... then every item in A fits in one of A1, A2, A3... i.e. there are no pages just sitting in A that don't fit into A1, A2, A3...

So the consensus for NPCs and Monsters so far as been to give them every category up to their top-level monster category. (see Axrock example above.) This somewhat contradicts the wikipedia guideline, (depending on if the monster types are diffusing or not. Some are, some aren't.), but I think it's the right way to go for Mistipedia. I think that someone looking for a list of Lycanthrope would expect Angel Pajaro to show up, even though Category:Lycanthrope is completely diffused into were-___ phenotypes.

What of other categories, though? For example: Category:Locations in Barovia and the like. Which of the following categories should Blood_o'_the_Vine_Inn be in: Category:Locations in Barovia, Category:Locations in the Village of Barovia, and/or Category:Location? Theoretically, if we have a Category:Locations in _____ for every domain, then Category:Location would be completely diffused, and thus, by the wikipedia guidelines Category:Location shouldn't have any pages in it, only subcategories. Is the same true of Category:Locations in Barovia? Is it completely diffused by [[:Category:Locations in <Barovian Town X>]]? If so, should there be any pages in Category:Locations in Barovia? or only subcategories?

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. 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?

-- 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 (why "Location" for one, but "Locations" for the other?). It would be painful to change, but maybe we should. Thoughts? -- Gonzoron 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoooo, boy. My head right now? Stuck in a 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? --Nerit 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Category order

On Mistipedia_talk:Guidelines, User:D'Ysmaul asks: "Given the categorization guidelines, are there any conventions about category order that I should know about?"

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? -- Gonzoron 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)