Editing 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]]?

:::It's easier to tolerate mediawiki when it does not invent stupid names that are not in the dictionary.  IT is also easier to tolerate [[Lowest Troll]]s who do not do that much.

::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

::::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.

-------

This is the current list [[Special:categories]] returns.  A few 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

  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.

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

''According to [[talk:link to this page]]'',

It is possible to use [[categories]] like:

*defines or challenges the mission of [[Consumerium:itself]]
*helps [[Consumerium itself]] [[develop:itself]]
*helps [[Consumerium itself]] [[research:itself]]
*helps [[Consumerium itself]] [[publish:itself]]

But adding such categories is actually messy, and it means paages will be very often in multiple categories.  Tags work better than categories for a great many things includingt this I think.

Also if you shift off [[mediawiki]] your [[categories]] won't necessarily stick, while the links will.  For instance to use [[tiddlywiki]] for [[Publish:namespace]] is fine if you did it with links, but not if you did it with categories.