From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    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 Trolls 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 wikis, 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 structures 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.

    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
    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:

    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.