Mistipedia talk:Categorization Guidelines

Let's hash out the Categorization Guidelines once and for all

OK, we've all been working for a while here, let's see if we've come to any conclusions on Categorization. There are some questions on Category_talk:The_Twisting, Category_talk:Ethnic_Group, and elsewhere that need to be resolved. Strap in. This will get deep, nitpicky and bumpy...

types of categories

First, let's look at how wikipedia does things, (w:Categorization)for a bit of comparison: They break up their categories into "Set" and "Topic" categories:

Topic categories are named after a topic (usually sharing a name with the Wikipedia article on that topic). For example, Category:France contains articles relating to the topic France.
Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France contains articles whose subjects are cities in France.

Also, there is another layer, "content" and "project" categories:

content categories, intended as part of the encyclopedia, to help readers find articles, based on features of the subjects of those articles;
project categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages.

Thus far we haven't really made much use of "project" categories here at Mistipedia. There are some like , but they are mainly automatically inserted by templates that we've copied from elsewhere. So let's restrict the discussion to "content" categories for now.

Subcategories

You can look at categories as either a "box" to put pages in. (or folder, or directory, choose your metaphor). Or you can look at them like a "label" you put on pages. (or tag, or somesuch). In the software, they are implemented as labels. By which, I mean, you can put any categories on a page that you want. You aren't bound by boxes. (Azalin can be a and a and a , even though those three categories are distinct.

(This means you can even create loops if you want.  We've seen that if you want to make NPCs into categories, you could put  into  and ALSO put  into.   But consensus seems to be that's a bad idea, and Wikipedia agrees: "Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops.")

It seems to me that the "box" metaphor applies better to "set" categories and the "label" metaphor applies better to "topic" categories. (Feel free to disagree). This brings me to what I'm mainly getting at, which is Cure's comment on Category_talk:The_Twisting regarding the "containment rules", and also the somewhat controversial idea to combine categories and pages. is a box of lots of boxes (of boxes of boxes...). Beryl Silvertress and Axrock go in the box. The box goes in the box (along with all the other vampires). The box goes nicely in the box, which is in the box. All is well. Beryl and Axrock are Dwarven Vampires, they are Vampires, they are Undead, and they are Monsters. In this simple case, the following "containment rule" applies: "X is in Category:Y if and only if X is a Y. Category:Y is in Category:Z if and only if all Y's are Z's."

Now, what of ? that's more of a label (or a topic), isn't it? You can slap it on lots of boxes or pages, anything that's related to Vampirism. But that doesn't mean everything in with that label IS "A Vampirism". For example, Vorlogs are not vampires, but they are related to vampirism. Like , it doesn't have a "containment rule." And that's OK, IMHO. The rule for a topic/label is "X is in topic Category:Y if and only if X is related to Y. Set Category:Y is in Topic Category:Z if and only if all Y's are related to Z."

so far so good? maybe?

Here's where things break down: What of "Set" categories where the Box itself fits in a set, but not everything in the box: Meredoth is a . All Necromancers are Wizards. But Wizard is in , which is in . Clearly, Meredoth is a Necromancer and a Wizard. But he's not a class, nor is he a Game Rule. Is this OK? If so, how can we codify it clearly?

Pages vs. Categories

Yes, we've confronted this before, notably here: Category_talk:Goblin. But now let's revisit it in terms of Category_talk:The_Twisting, and the experiment. Personally, I feel that The Twisting should be a page, not a category. It's a single thing, unlike vampire, which is a group of things. But how does that mesh with the whole set vs. topic categorization thing? In wikipedia terms, is a fine topic category, a way to link together things that relate to The Twisting. But in the same what that merging with Goblin grates on User:ChrisNichols, merging with The Twisting grates on me, and I think I finally realize why: because it's a topic category and not a set category.

I still think there's value in the the merged category/pages. But can we limit them to only "Set" categories? Does that make sense to anyone but me?

(to follow the metaphor, it's ok to staple the page about goblins to outside of the goblin box, but we don't want the page on The Twisting copied onto every "The Twisting" label stuck on things related to "The Twisting", do we?)

Subcategorization levels

Wikipedia says:

Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and Non-diffusing subcategories below.

(to be continued... ) -- Gonzoron 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Category order

On Mistipedia_talk:Guidelines, User:D'Ysmaul asks: "Given the categorization guidelines, are there any conventions about category order that I should know about?"

User:Cure had mentioned an order he was using for the NPC categories somewhere, but I can't find it. What was it? and does anyone else have thoughts on this subject? -- Gonzoron 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)