Forum:Categories

Which categories on this site are the most basic? What I mean is, what categories can all articles be traced back to? Whatever they are, I think they should be prominently linked to on the main page. Adamwankenobi 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, they are: "Main Page" --> "Encyclopedia" --> "Other Features" --> "Categories". --Alan del Beccio 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what he does mean that after years of categories MA/en still hasn't some sort of main category which breaks down into a handfull of subcategories. Current process is to simply dump a new category in provisional categories ... -- Kobi 09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. For instance, I think the site should have a main category called "Memory Alpha". From there, I think it should branch into "In-universe articles", "Real-world articles", and "Site maintainance articles". Or something like that. :) Adamwankenobi 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have Category:Star Trek and Category:Memory Alpha maintenance used for two of the three "main categories" you identified. There have been inconclusive discussions about whether there should be a single main category for all "in-universe" articles, and what its name should be. At the moment, I don't think a single main category would make sense, because categorization turned out to not really work in a "top-down tree-structure"-way... -- Cid Highwind 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Permission to clean this place up
Since I began editing here, I've noticed that the site has a very messy categorization system. And, as a person with OCD, I have a strong desire to see everything neatly organized. Also, I find it silly that every new category must be voted on, as this slows progress. With all of this procedure, it would take forever to get this place properly organized. I have a clear vision for how this site could be properly organized and wish to implement this. So please, please let me just be bold and clean up this mess. I would love to like this place, as it is an awesome site, but every time I make the slightest move someone shoves some silly policy down my throat. It has the tendency to drive away a well-meaning user like myself. Adamwankenobi 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of policies and procedures, and at times it does feel like you're getting beaten over the head with them, or that they get in the way of getting the job done. There is a procedure for changing almost anything here, though, and you're free to lay out your proposal and put it to a vote. For most things, majority rules, so if you have a good idea, there's a good chance it could get adopted. There are some specific reasons, though, for wanting to keep the number of categories to a relative minimum (as opposed to, say, Wikipedia). I don't think most folks here would want to see unfettered category creation. -- Renegade54 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is, that there is no single "best" way to do a categorization. Without trying to attack you personally, if you believe that you found that best way, you're probably wrong. That's why we decided to have that policy of "discussing first, implementing later" regarding categories. If everyone would just implement his/her preferred way of categorizing everything, we would probably just end up with several "concurrent and incoherent" categorization schemes, like Wikipedia - and since categorization and especially recategorization means editing many pages (instead of other actions, that are mostly restricted to single articles), we try to find a consensus before instead of after. Sorry if that's somehow incompatible with your goals and ways of editing. Anyhow, I'd personally still be interested in hearing about your ideas... -- Cid Highwind 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)