Talk:Categories - Revision history

142.177.82.215 at 19:42, 27 August 2005

2005-08-27T19:42:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 27 August 2005
Line 12:		Line 12:

	::::It is an exception to the rule about not using words that aren't in the dictionary; So also is [[trollist]] terminology that has evolved to describe struggles for power in [[large public wiki]]s, and for which there is as yet no clear terminology except maybe Marxist rhetoric... which we should avoid.		::::It is an exception to the rule about not using words that aren't in the dictionary; So also is [[trollist]] terminology that has evolved to describe struggles for power in [[large public wiki]]s, and for which there is as yet no clear terminology except maybe Marxist rhetoric... which we should avoid.

			::::Bottom line: it is balanced to use [[trollist]] and [[mediawiki]] terms absolutely as the [[trolls]] and the [[sysop power structure]] have invented them, without exception - to follow one set of names and not another would be unbalanced as the trolls fight the developers' usurpation of power, and the developers provide ways to limit or attack troll activity - the only way to achieve balance is to accept BOTH the troll terms to describe [[power structure]]s and the sysop terms to describe [[wiki software]] that it's built on. Anything else leads to unbalance and chaos... probably rampant [[sysopism]] or etc..

			::::Think of it this way: imagine you were using a lot of US military technology. To accept their maintenance manuals and to call each nut and bolt the way they do, is wise. But to also accept their ideology and doctrines or command just because you are using their hardware, is unwise. Instead you would do better to use the closest to exact opposite military doctrines and disciplines, if you wish to have any chance against them in battle.

	-------		-------

142.177.82.215: noting link to this page issue, which is better for portability than categories, and the exceptions (trollist and mediawiki terms) to the "stick to the dictionary" rule

2005-08-27T19:39:26Z

noting link to this page issue, which is better for portability than categories, and the exceptions (trollist and mediawiki terms) to the "stick to the dictionary" rule

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :::even, better, I deleted it as an unused redirect. Why you always gotta be so anti-[[MediaWiki]]?
 ::The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special:namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately.  You can't fight your underlying softwaere.
 :::That's a valid point; I'll take notice
 -------
@@ Line 62: / Line 66: @@
 :A critical category.

Jukeboksi: removing old stuff (old as in 1 hour or so), some replies. a point taken.

2005-08-27T18:24:07Z

removing old stuff (old as in 1 hour or so), some replies. a point taken.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Since <strike>~~[[Special:~~Allcategories~~]]~~</strike>~~ is the ~~stupid keyword [[MediaWiki]] uses, probably we need to have~~ page ~~[[Allcategories]] to introduce them.~~		:[[Special:Categories]] is the correct special page

	:~~No such thing as~~ [[~~Special:Allcategories~~]]~~. Check the links you put into articles. I'll look up the correct page that displays all categories --~~[[~~User:Juxo\|Juxo~~]] ~~17:44, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)~~		::If so, move [[All categories]] to [[categories]].

	:[[Special:~~Categories~~]] ~~is the correct special page~~		:::even, better, I deleted it as an unused redirect. Why you always gotta be so anti-[[MediaWiki]]?

			::The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special:namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately. You can't fight your underlying softwaere.

	::~~If so, move [[All categories]] to [[categories]]. The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special~~:~~namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately. You can~~'~~t fight your underlying softwaere.~~		:::That's a valid point; I'll take notice

	-------		-------

142.177.82.215 at 18:19, 27 August 2005

2005-08-27T18:19:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 27 August 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:
	-------		-------

	This is the current list [[Special:categories]] returns. ~~Most~~ of them are bad names:		This is the current list [[Special:categories]] returns. A few of them are bad names:

	1. Cell Phones		1. Cell Phones
Line 52:		Line 52:

	:Are these different? Possibly, but maybe just a category [[wiki]] alone is enough		:Are these different? Possibly, but maybe just a category [[wiki]] alone is enough

			Humor

			:That's subjective. To [[fund Consumerium]] for instance may have a humorous version from [[NTPOV]] and many "serious" versions, it's a bad idea to categorize whole pages based on some content that will be seen seriously by some and not by others. Better to say "funny" since something can be both serious and funny, but what is "humor" is too easily dismissed; "Humor" describes intent, while "funny" describes a page attribute - the latter is far more neutral.

			[[Bad page name]]

			:A critical category.

142.177.82.215: wait! must discuss and design categories, else get into a horror

2005-08-27T18:09:48Z

wait! must discuss and design categories, else get into a horror

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 27 August 2005
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::If so, move [[All categories]] to [[categories]]. The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special:namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately. You can't fight your underlying softwaere.		::If so, move [[All categories]] to [[categories]]. The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special:namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately. You can't fight your underlying softwaere.

			-------

			This is the current list [[Special:categories]] returns. Most of them are bad names:

			1. Cell Phones

			:This is bad since [[worn device]]s is a more general term, and there is no reason to believe that reliance on cellular as opposed to cordless or [[VoIP]] or [[WiFi]] or pager protocols to get the [[Consumerium buying signal]] to the worn device, makes any difference at all. A better term would be "mobile" category since it allows for all those methods.

			2. Cleanup

			:Presumably this includes "simplify", "neutralize", "fill in missing links", etc., and other ways to cleanup; is this the term used for that category at [[Wikipedia]]? If so, fine.

			3. Deprecated

			:Fine as is. Well defined term in [[IETF]] circles and so on. Implies that a decision has occured and the decision has already been made to "deprecate"

			4. MediaWiki

			:Fine as is, as long as it really is only used to describe [[mediawiki]] specific terms and concepts

			5. Product classification schemes
			6. Product registries

			:Bad names, too specific: services and commodity inputs also need classification, and plurals should be avoided; How about "Classify" or "Register" meaning the page expresses a way to classify or register something? So that, when you actually classify or register, you refer to this category to see how to do it. Just as you would refer to the cleanup category to see what is highest priority to clean up.

			7. Stub

			:Fine. Standard.

			8. Tagged for Deletion

			:Potentially controversial. Prefer "deletion requested" which is far more neutral and allows for a neutral way to process such requests. Avoid "votes for" (it's not going to necessarily be a voting scheme) and "tagged for" (implies that one person makes all such choices and that others must argue uphill against them) and "to be deleted" (even worse).

			9. Trollism

			:Useless and self-defeating: to force corporations to be responsible for [[comprehensive outcome]]s of their products is also trollism, so if this is a category, while [[sysopism]] is not, then, it is considered fine to impose top down views of what is OK with no [[trollish]] protest. Propose having a category [[sysopism]] instead and treating trollist views as the basic view, i.e. [[New Troll point of view]] as neutral. That is the only way to make sure that the original users don't have a unbeatable edge over all new users.

			10. Users of other wikies

			:Spelled wrong obviously, but what is important about them is their politics not their use of wikis; How about just [[vocal entities]] or even just [[persons]]

			11. Wiki governance
			12. Wiki psychology

			:Are these different? Possibly, but maybe just a category [[wiki]] alone is enough

142.177.82.215 at 17:50, 27 August 2005

2005-08-27T17:50:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 27 August 2005
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:[[Special:Categories]] is the correct special page		:[[Special:Categories]] is the correct special page

			::If so, move [[All categories]] to [[categories]]. The [[main namespace]] must parallel the [[Special:namespace]] for such words, else you get into horrors almost immediately. You can't fight your underlying softwaere.

Jukeboksi: Special:Categories is the correct special page

2005-08-27T17:46:51Z

Special:Categories is the correct special page

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 27 August 2005
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:No such thing as [[Special:Allcategories]]. Check the links you put into articles. I'll look up the correct page that displays all categories --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:44, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)		:No such thing as [[Special:Allcategories]]. Check the links you put into articles. I'll look up the correct page that displays all categories --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:44, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)

			:[[Special:Categories]] is the correct special page

Jukeboksi: No such thing as Special:Allcategories. Check the links you put into articles

2005-08-27T17:44:21Z

No such thing as Special:Allcategories. Check the links you put into articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 27 August 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Since [[Special:Allcategories]] is the stupid keyword [[MediaWiki]] uses, probably we need to have page [[Allcategories]] to introduce them.		Since <strike>[[Special:Allcategories]]</strike> is the stupid keyword [[MediaWiki]] uses, probably we need to have page [[Allcategories]] to introduce them.

			:No such thing as [[Special:Allcategories]]. Check the links you put into articles. I'll look up the correct page that displays all categories --[[User:Juxo\|Juxo]] 17:44, 27 Aug 2005 (GMT)

142.177.82.215: Since Special:Allcategories is the stupid keyword MediaWiki uses, probably we need to have page Allcategories to introduce them.

2005-08-27T17:39:24Z

Since Special:Allcategories is the stupid keyword MediaWiki uses, probably we need to have page Allcategories to introduce them.

New page

Since [[Special:Allcategories]] is the stupid keyword [[MediaWiki]] uses, probably we need to have page [[Allcategories]] to introduce them.