| abstract
| - Are you actually advocating things like Category:Woolheads? Trying to figure out if this is for real or just your personal notes... we seem to be spawning categories like mad... For the record, I'd like to have categories even when we have few entries *now*, but they should probably have some sort of basis in being *expected* to have more than one or two articles... I do like "People" better than "Characters", however (more immersive). nae'blis (talk) 15:04, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) I see the aim of this page as being to lay out the categories for future growth. If we don't use or create them, there's absolutely no harm done. Woolheads and the corresponding one for females are just jokes I figured most fans can appreciate. I can only conceive of them being used for the Men and Women categories, respectively! A couple of the other ones I listed might end up with only two articles/subcategories, but I can see most growing to have at least three. None are categories for which only a single article/subcategory is forseeable (those would be utterly pointless). Feel free to strikeout stuff, and I will provide a justification if I think we should keep it. --Gherald 15:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) I'm trying to sort out how to keep the index from reproducing the bullet points every time we throw a comment in, so I'll bring this here. I understand what you're trying to do with the humorous categories, but if I use {{wotnav}} to go to People, I have to go through "Woolheads" to get to "Men". Not so: I have no plans to categorize Woolheads under People/Characters. Men can be categorized under People/Characters. It'd be overkill to try and convey that nuance on the index.... so I didn't bother. --Gherald 16:08, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) Wait, I'm confused then. Right now it's proposed as:
* People/Characters
* Woolheads
* Men What am I missing? nae'blis (talk) 17:03, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* sigh, I should have just created the categories the way I envisioned them. I never thought it would be so difficult to explain without just doing it. You are missing that the text "[[Category:People]]" will NOT appear Category:Woolheads, yet WILL be in . Basically there is a two way connection between People <--> Men, and a joke connection from Woolheads <--> Men. There is absolutely no connection from Woolheads <--> anything other than Men. --Gherald 17:20, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
* Aha! *light goes on*. I probably started the problem by making the "top level categories" into section headers. I knew I should have left it the way it was... in fact I'll make it go back, so we're at least seeing things in the same context. ::edit:: And it's done! nae'blis (talk) Extra clicks are not helpful to people trying to find things. "Channelers" is even worse, because who is going to expect to look under "marath'damane" to find Aes Sedai? I guess that's what I'm getting at... for right now, I started a stub at that may be the best of both worlds. nae'blis (talk) 15:56, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) This is an example of what we talked about in the above section. Aes Sedai can be cross listed under Channelers, no problem. --Gherald 16:07, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) Funnily, I had to look four times before I actually noticed the joke inlined on . I think this is my cue to get some sleep. When I wake I'll set it up the way I originaly envisioned, and will promise not to complain very loud if it gets removed/reverted soon or further down the line by you or anyone else. Cheers, --Gherald 16:48, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) Yeah, get some sleep (and then I can get some work done, heh). I think we've got to look at this from two sides: browsing through the categories, and ways a particular article might get (cross)categorized. nae'blis (talk) 17:03, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)\ ZZZzz... WHAT? Did Neab edit another page? I had better check it out first! ; ) --Gherald 17:20, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) Actually, I meant at work if you must know... you know, that thing they're paying me for? nae'blis (talk) 17:24, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)