Should we use the category system in our wiki?

[Lefteous]

The wiki software Mediawiki provides a system for categorizing articles. An article can be contained in no, one or multiple categories.
The categories of an article are listed at the very bottom of an article page.

Category pages have three parts a user-defined part at the top of the page, subcategories and articles separated by starting letter.

Here is an example category containing subcategories and articles. The category page doesn't contain user-defined text at the top of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legislative_Branch_of_the_United_States_Government

An article contained in two categories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

Poll options:

1) Yes use categories the same way as in wikipedia.
2) Yes use categories but add manual link lists to category pages.
3) Use categories but in a different way (specified in my post).
4) No don't use categories. Use manually created pages with link lists. Article pages should contain plain "back" wiki links to such pages.
5) No don't use categories. I have another idea (specified in my post).


We should make the decision as early as possible to avoid unnecessary work.

[Stance]

Hi,
to use categorys in a wiki is elementary! The navigation through pages within the same category is faster than any goback-function. And there are pages which belong to more than one category. I like your 2nd example better and the categorys are listed at the bottom of this page. Maybe that is Wiki-standard? To have the categorys as "first pages" looks like a table of contents for me -not so interesting, but we could use this in the TC-Wiki in some places!
I voted for: "Yes use categories the same way as in wikipedia"

Thanks and kind regards
Stance

[Lefteous]

2Stance

to use categorys in a wiki is elementary! The navigation through pages within the same category is faster than any goback-function. And there are pages which belong to more than one category. I like your 2nd example better and the categorys are listed at the bottom of this page. Maybe that is Wiki-standard? To have the categorys as "first pages" looks like a table of contents for me -not so interesting, but we could use this in the TC-Wiki in some places!
I voted for: "Yes use categories the same way as in wikipedia"

Your ideas don't fit together. If categories are faster than any go back function how would you avoid that category pages are shown as "first-pages"? You can't have both, right?

[AlleyKat]

If I'm allowed to go slightly off-topic, I'd like to make a more general observation regarding the Wiki.

First of all, great job - it's really getting better and more useful every day.

I've been looking a bit at the Category "Ideas and suggestions", and my humble opinion actually is that it doesn't belong in a wiki at all. OK, maybe it's just me, but to me a wiki simply isn't a place for discussion, it's a place for facts - this forum would be a way better choice for debate.

[Lefteous]

2AlleyKat

First of all, great job - it's really getting better and more useful every day.

I agree it's getting better and better.

I've been looking a bit at the Category "Ideas and suggestions", and my humble opinion actually is that it doesn't belong in a wiki at all. OK, maybe it's just me, but to me a wiki simply isn't a place for discussion, it's a place for facts - this forum would be a way better choice for debate.

I agree that the category "ideas and suggestions" in our wiki is not the right place to discuss feature requests. I don't think it was ever ment to be a place for discussion at all but this category exists for other reasons:
- to collect feature requests
- to categorize feature requests
- to find already made requests faster
For all this tasks the wiki is IMHO better than this forum.

If this forum is the right place to discuss new features is another story. Here is another thread which discusses exactly this topic:
http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=8531

[Stance]

AlleyKat,
on the first view you are right. Lets say in the future the Wiki grows and you could take a look in there to find out if a suggestion was made before. And maybe there will be a page (from the chief...) about functions that will be implemented in the coming versions.

If this forum is the right place to discuss new features is another story.

-sometimes it is getting hot in here...

Kind regards
Stance

[AlleyKat]

*sigh* I'd just written a huge post, then my firefox crashed - again.

Ah well here we go again, short version:

Lefteous > Exactly - if you locked that part of the wiki down for editing only by 'those who know', it'd work great I think.

Both > On it being hot in here, well - then you'd just be moving that to the wiki, wouldn't you? I mean, things are loosening up for the most parts, but there are still clashing personalities - thats up to the moderators and the owner to sort out, or at least smooth out. There has been a learning process there as well, I think it's safe to say, and lessons learned. http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml is an excellent article on how-to in IRC channels, and this is just as true for forums - if not even more, as chat goes away but forums stay.

Stance > Thanks for help teaching me some basic wiki.


My very basic opinion is that a wiki should be as static and permanent as possible, once created and put to use. Like, even the forum rules should be a wiki page, if you get my drift... wikis are for articles, links, feature lists, showcases, anything you could consider static data for the present version (with development, histrionics etc as secondary features). Forums are for discussions and questions.

Also, I think we have a bunch of super knowledgeable people here on the forums and I certainly hope they'll all contribute, as their gathered knowledge is invaluable info to other members and new users. Who else could contribulte to great wiki features such as most commonly asked questions etc etc. You are the people who possess the knowledge. Come out and share...

[brian]

lefte,
Of course an encyclopedia should use categories, and on the surface of things i'd used the wikipedia format, if only because it has been tested and tried.
But describe to us what the [dis]advantages are of the 2 best options, your mind?

Sorry to give you work.

PS
Is your avatar describing you, or somebody you admire?

[Lefteous]

2brian

Of course an encyclopedia should use categories, and on the surface of things i'd used the wikipedia format, if only because it has been tested and tried.

Some users think the category pages look some kind of confusing. For me that's not a big issue.
Others want to use the category system for cross-references which is confusing to me. I think we should not mix up these two things.
We should use the category system but only if it's accepted by the people who use our wiki.
We are currently testing if some templates could be used where categories have been overused in the past.

Is your avatar describing you, or somebody you admire?

No that's not me. I just thought it looks at bit more friendly than my previous

[brian]

Could you gimme examples of both types of confusionn? Don't wanna put you out man

[Lefteous]

2brian

Could you gimme examples of both types of confusionn?

- For the category pages:
As far as I understood it others prefer a list of subcategories instead of the alphabetical seperated display.
In the meanwhile I found a way to avoid subcategories to be added to the alphabetical list. We could create this list automatically.
Examples:
http://www.ghisler.ch/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Ideas_and_suggestions:Look_and_Feel
http://www.ghisler.ch/wiki/index.php/Full_Windows_XP_style_support

AFAIK the same applies to the articles listed on a category page.

- For the cross-references:
Add a category link means to add an article or category to one or more highler-level category. I hope you agree that adding a (category) page called "wcx ideas" is not part of of a higher-level category "wdx ideas". They are both on the same level.
As a cross-reference it make sense to me.

[ghisler(Author)]

As a passive user of Wikipedia, I must say that I have never seen these categories. When I started with the TC Wiki, I decided to follow the Web page and link concept: The "categories" in the Wiki are just normal Wiki pages which link to subcategries etc. I think that this is the eaiest to understand for users, because it's the same concept which is used by all Web pages.

[Lefteous]

As a passive user of Wikipedia

I think it's ok that you are a passive user but you are the Sysop and should do the jobs a Sysop should do. For example deleting trash pages, keep the software uptodate and consider wiki user requests.

I must say that I have never seen these categories. When I started with the TC Wiki, I decided to follow the Web page and link concept: The "categories" in the Wiki are just normal Wiki pages which link to subcategries etc. I think that this is the eaiest to understand for users, because it's the same concept which is used by all Web pages.

OK we'll consider that.

[ghisler(Author)]

2Lefteous
I meant passive user of the original Wikipedia, not the TC Wiki. I do check my wiki regularly, but saw little reason so far to do any moderation/deleting...

[Lefteous]

2ghisler(Author)

I meant passive user of the original Wikipedia, not the TC Wiki.

Ah ok

do check my wiki regularly, but saw little reason so far to do any moderation/deleting...

I don't think moderation is required.
I ment zombie pages like this one:
http://www.ghisler.ch/wikide/index.php/AutoHotkey:_Backspace_In_Drive_Root_Opens_My_Computer
It's marked with a "request for deletion" template.

Could you please think about adding some custom namespaces (LocalSettings.php):

Code: Select all

$wgExtraNamespaces =
       array(100 => "Ideas_and_suggestions", 
             101 => "Ideas_and_suggestions_Talk");

Underscores must be used instead of spaces.
Custom namespaces start from 100. The corresponding talk page is inserted behind the new namespace.