⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️
This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.
If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.
{{Vptopic |topic=Over-categorization |summary=Discussion on the new task categories that have been sprouting up lately }} I am not very happy with a lot of the new task categories that have been created lately. Lots of them seem to be too specific. Some of them don't seem necessary. I think we need to stop blindly and unilaterally categorizing tasks and plan some of them out instead. We need to talk about how to organize these tasks in a way that best benefits the users. Some examples include (and I don't mean to pick on [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]], but I know he has created a lot so I looked through his for examples):
Too specific: *[[:Category:Joystick]] *[[:Category:Internet Protocol 4]]/[[:Category:Internet Protocol 6]]
Unnecessary: *[[:Category:Arithmetic]] ([[:Category:Arithmetic operations]] was enough]]) *[[:Category:Loop modifiers]] (see: [[:Category:Loops]]) *[[:Category:Scope]] *[[:Category:Joystick]] *[[:Category:Initialization]] (this doesn't look like it has the right name)
We need to come up with the way we want to do this. We can use semantic mediawiki to tag tasks (which was a goal for that system here). If we do that we need to figure out how exactly that can happen. We can keep using categories. If we do that I think we need to decide if we want a tree, how deep it goes, how we want it organized, or, if we don't want a tree, what flat categories we want to use. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 02:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
:I agree with at least some of these. In particular, a category shouldn't be created unless there's multiple existing full tasks that can be categorized with it, ''and'' it should be distinct from all the existing categories too. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's another one. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
*[[:Category:Inverted syntax]] (only had [[Inverted syntax]] in it; empty now following edit)
: I'd hold off on clearing some of those categories quite yet; it looks like Mark is moving content from his site to RC, and I'd wager there's already an organizational structure in place. If the concern here is about duplicate categories, I ''seriously'' recommend taking a look at SMW's semantic properties. You can have a property be a subproperty of another, such that Loop Modifiers might appear as a more specific aspect of loops. This is ''exactly'' the kind of problem SMW is designed to be good at. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
::How do we set up these sub-properties? I think it would be easiest to have a "tag" template that just adds