Talk:Categories Tree

I would say that Conspiracy Theories, while Mythology, also fall in the realm of Politics. vis JFK CT *here*. BoArthur

Yes, I agree. Anyway, this page is just my effort to draw the complete category tree. There are several things that that I'd like to simplify a bit. I'm by no means claiming the whole categories thing, so if you see anything that needs to be improved, please go ahead.

You asked how you can help, Dan. Well, I have already done Category:Nations. What I think needs to be done is cleaning up the media section a little. Look at this:

	F. Media (63, 9)
		1. Books (23, 0)
		2. Entertainment (47, 4)
			a) Celebrities (5, 0)
			b) Music (11, 0)
			c) Plays (5, 0)
			d) SV2245 (5, 0)
		3. Eurovidere (3, 0)
		4. Movies (13, 1)
			d) SV2245
		5. Music ()
		6. News Media (17, 1)
			a) Print (2, 0)
		7. Plays ()
		8. Radio (3, 0)
		9. Television (27, 1)
 			a) SV2245 ()

The problem here is that many articles in this section are categorised both in Category:Media and in one or more of its underlying subcategories. And as a result, all these articles belong to four or five different categories, where one or two would do equally fine. If you write an article about music, adding it to Category:Music would be sufficient, since this placed it automatically under Entertainment and Media as well; placing it separately in those categories is IMO pointless and against the spirit of subcategories. Most of my view are in Help:Categories, which I just completed.

Incidentally, I'd like to move the items from Category:Print to Category:News Media and delete the former (only two articles).

Now that we are discussing categories, I'd like your opinion. With all due respect for Carlos' work, I competely fail to see the point of introducing a category structure as Wikipedia uses it. Things like Category:Social sciences should IMO go, since they are of no relevance to our stuff. What we could definitely use, OTOH, is a Category:Images (with things like flags, maps and portraits as subcategories). What do you think?

Cheers, IJzeren Jan 12:56, 28 October 2005 (PDT)

Re Carlos' work, I agree, some parts of the suggested categories is completely beyond the IB scope at this point in time. I think that we could safely eliminate them.

Re Print Media v. News Media, I think that at this point it's a good idea. If we ever have a great number of articles about Print Media (newspapers, usw.) we should then break it out.

I think that I was categorizing under the main category as well as the subs to aid in finding things. If you feel simplification would be just as good, I'm not strongly for or against, and I see no harm in moving that way, since we're mostly the ones that seem to care about categories outside of Carlos. BoArthur

A first draft of minimizing. Please add your own suggestions...I'm not sure what to remove or place under things, because Entertainment seems to be just as much Media. What do you think, Jan?

	F. Media & Entertainment (63, 9)
		1. Books (23, 0)
		2. Celebrities (5, 0)
		3. Music (11, 0)
		4. Plays (5, 0)
		5. Radio (3, 0)
		6. Television (27, 1)
 			a) SV2245 ()
		7. Eurovidere (3, 0)
		8. Movies (13, 1)
			a) SV2245
		9 Music ()
		10. News Media (17, 1)

I edited them, but they got kinda messy, so you may want to review what I've done to make sure I didn't screw it all up. I tried to do Media & Entertainment, but it doesn't work, so I changed it to Media and Entertainment. BoArthur

Excellent, thank you for your efforts. It looks fine this way!

As for categorising under the main cat as well as under the subs, well, that remains of course a matter of taste. In my view, the whole purpose of subcategorisation is to make it easier to find things (because in a list of 300 items it's not at all that easy). I'd like to make one exception, though: Category:Louisianne is a sub of Category:Nations in North America. Yet, I think it's worth to keep the article Louisianne itself in both categories.

Now that we are at it, Dan, would it be too much asked to proofread my article Help:Categories? Even if no one is ever going to use it, I think pages like that ought to be written properly!

Cheers, IJzeren Jan 07:01, 29 October 2005 (PDT)