Talk:Categories

Special:Categories is the correct special page

If so, move All categories to categories.

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

---

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

  1. Cell Phones

This is bad since worn devices 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 outcomes 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

 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.