Difference between revisions of "NSWiki:Village pump"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
(→Suggestion Box) |
Frisbeeteria (Talk | contribs) (Character subcats and archived older discussions) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:NS MetaWiki]] | [[Category:NS MetaWiki]] | ||
{{NSwiki_meta_toc}} | {{NSwiki_meta_toc}} | ||
| + | [[/Archive/]] | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
This is a place to talk about anything '''NSwiki related'''. If the discussion is more appropriate on some other page, move it there. For example, if it is a question and answer that others may find useful move it to [[NSwiki:user questions|user questions]]. | This is a place to talk about anything '''NSwiki related'''. If the discussion is more appropriate on some other page, move it there. For example, if it is a question and answer that others may find useful move it to [[NSwiki:user questions|user questions]]. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
:The thing about categories is that we already have nearly two hundred of them, and the Factbooks are intermingled with the General Interest categories. If we start creating new Cats for every subdivision possible in this quasi-fictional world, no one will ever be able to keep up with them. As the sysop self-appointed to categorizing all the lost articles, I appeal to you - please limit your categories, and don't add unnecessary categories to your articles. Thanks. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] | :The thing about categories is that we already have nearly two hundred of them, and the Factbooks are intermingled with the General Interest categories. If we start creating new Cats for every subdivision possible in this quasi-fictional world, no one will ever be able to keep up with them. As the sysop self-appointed to categorizing all the lost articles, I appeal to you - please limit your categories, and don't add unnecessary categories to your articles. Thanks. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] | ||
::What about [[:Category:History]]? If I create an article about an historical event, should I put [[:Category:History]] down the bottom as well as [[:Category:Pantocratoria]]? --[[User:Pantocratoria|Pantocratoria]] 10:49, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT) | ::What about [[:Category:History]]? If I create an article about an historical event, should I put [[:Category:History]] down the bottom as well as [[:Category:Pantocratoria]]? --[[User:Pantocratoria|Pantocratoria]] 10:49, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | ::: Virtually everything in the wiki is a historical document of some sort. I'd leave Category:History alone except for articles that ''collect'' all the historical information in one page ... "A Short History of Pantocratoria", that sort of thing. Most people put that on their main nation page, but for some it's an elaborate series. I'd say, "one page => Category:History" , "Several pages => National factbook". I wouldn't use both. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 21:01, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | : | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | = | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
====Character Subcategories?==== | ====Character Subcategories?==== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 30: | ||
--[[User:Khrrck|Khrrck]] 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT) | --[[User:Khrrck|Khrrck]] 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT) | ||
| − | === NGO Category === | + | : I don't know about Gods and immortals, but I could potentially see separating out the historic (non-playing characters) from the actively roleplayed characters. The chief problem is that we have tied [[:Category:Characters]] to the standard character template, [[Template:Infobox_Character|Infobox_Character]]. If we start recategorizing, we're going to have to create a bunch of new templates and/or alter a ton of individual pages. |
| + | |||
| + | : I don't see as much of a problem from a "distressingly large" category as Khrrck seems to. Greater subcategorization might make sense in Wikipedia where people are likely to seek out related topics, but here I think readers are more prone to follow links within articles than to seek enlightenment by reading an entire category. It's confusing enough for new users as it is - adding new infoboxes or requiring every new contributor to understand a complicated categorization strategy strikes me as a lot more work for relatively little benefit. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 04:41, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== NGO Category ==== | ||
We have [[:Category:Corporations]] for our for-profit organizations, [[:Category:Agencies]] for our intra-governmental organizations, but we don't really have anything for non-government, non-profit groups like Trade Unions and such. While there isn't much need for one at the moment, it was suggested that a new category might be helpful towards inspiring the creation of those sorts of articles. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 14:31, 23 Dec 2004 (GMT) | We have [[:Category:Corporations]] for our for-profit organizations, [[:Category:Agencies]] for our intra-governmental organizations, but we don't really have anything for non-government, non-profit groups like Trade Unions and such. While there isn't much need for one at the moment, it was suggested that a new category might be helpful towards inspiring the creation of those sorts of articles. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 14:31, 23 Dec 2004 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Complaint Department == | == Complaint Department == | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 00:41, 4 January 2005
|
Contents
This is a place to talk about anything NSwiki related. If the discussion is more appropriate on some other page, move it there. For example, if it is a question and answer that others may find useful move it to user questions.
Suggestion Box
Category Creation
The following Primary Categories are now available on the Main Page:
Nations | Regions | Alliances | Characters | Wars | History | Factbooks | UN | NationStates
Historic Nations | Corporations | Languages | Religions | Hardware | Species | Roleplay | Sports Roleplay | Gameplay | NSwiki
In addition to that, any nation that has multiple nation-specific pages should have a Factbook (Category:Factbooks) so we don't have a bunch of unknown, uncategorized pages floating around the wiki. If most of your NS or NSwiki activity is based around a region (BookCrossing, Projekt Myra) or an alliance (CACE, GDODAD), make that your factbook instead.
There are also another half dozen minor categories available in Category:Roleplaying, some of which may be superfluous or convertable to something more general (Currency → Economics ?). I'm thinking we shouldn't be adding any more primary categories (or for that matter, secondary) without discussing them here first. I'd also like see it become official NSwiki policy.
Comments? Questions? Suggestions? → Fris Θtalk 18:01, 29 Oct 2004 (GMT)
- I'd like to see a voluntary limitation on the use of Categories. The way I see it, almost anything related to your nation/region/alliance is fair game for a factbook, but the broader categories don't enjoy the same freedom. For instance, if you have a history of Wars outside of NS roleplay, they can go in your factbook, but not in Category:Wars. Even though you roleplayed every bit of your history, none of it should be added to Category:Roleplaying. Those ... ummm ... Master Topics should be reserved for things that have a general relationship to the topic, and appeal to a wide variety of players and readers. If two nations rp a war on IRC or via offsite forums, that particular war could justifiably be placed in both player's factbooks, but shouldn't be added to Wars. Other categories like Sports roleplaying, might have a smaller but intense population ... but I still don't want to see every nation that participates in Sport RP added to the category.
- The thing about categories is that we already have nearly two hundred of them, and the Factbooks are intermingled with the General Interest categories. If we start creating new Cats for every subdivision possible in this quasi-fictional world, no one will ever be able to keep up with them. As the sysop self-appointed to categorizing all the lost articles, I appeal to you - please limit your categories, and don't add unnecessary categories to your articles. Thanks. → Fris Θtalk
- What about Category:History? If I create an article about an historical event, should I put Category:History down the bottom as well as Category:Pantocratoria? --Pantocratoria 10:49, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT)
- Virtually everything in the wiki is a historical document of some sort. I'd leave Category:History alone except for articles that collect all the historical information in one page ... "A Short History of Pantocratoria", that sort of thing. Most people put that on their main nation page, but for some it's an elaborate series. I'd say, "one page => Category:History" , "Several pages => National factbook". I wouldn't use both. → Fris Θtalk 21:01, 6 Dec 2004 (GMT)
Character Subcategories?
Should Category:Characters be subdivided? It seems to be getting distressingly large. I'd suggest adding subcategories for specific types of characters. (Gods, AIs, immortals, nonhumans of particular species, et cetera.) --Khrrck 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)
- I don't know about Gods and immortals, but I could potentially see separating out the historic (non-playing characters) from the actively roleplayed characters. The chief problem is that we have tied Category:Characters to the standard character template, Infobox_Character. If we start recategorizing, we're going to have to create a bunch of new templates and/or alter a ton of individual pages.
- I don't see as much of a problem from a "distressingly large" category as Khrrck seems to. Greater subcategorization might make sense in Wikipedia where people are likely to seek out related topics, but here I think readers are more prone to follow links within articles than to seek enlightenment by reading an entire category. It's confusing enough for new users as it is - adding new infoboxes or requiring every new contributor to understand a complicated categorization strategy strikes me as a lot more work for relatively little benefit. → Fris Θtalk 04:41, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)
NGO Category
We have Category:Corporations for our for-profit organizations, Category:Agencies for our intra-governmental organizations, but we don't really have anything for non-government, non-profit groups like Trade Unions and such. While there isn't much need for one at the moment, it was suggested that a new category might be helpful towards inspiring the creation of those sorts of articles. → Fris Θtalk 14:31, 23 Dec 2004 (GMT)
