Category talk:Encyclopedia

From ST_ACTD Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Objective of this Category

I created this category to collect all those categories floating around without being linked properly (i.e. Minerals, Plants, ...). While those pages belong here more or less without question, there are some issues regarding other pages/category. Namely: Locations, Species, Enlisted Ratings as well as (not yet added) Characters, Ships, Fleets, Divisions, Missions. Please feel free to discuss here whether those pages should be put in this category/should stay here or not.

Additionally I suggest to add this Category to the links on the Main Page so people can find it.

Forgive my ignorance, but this is intended to be a "well, if it doesn't fit somewhere else, stick it here" category? --CDickinson 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, okay. No, no and, uh, no. Unless you have a very good reason why this category is needed it's going to be deleted. I know as rule of thumb categorizing articles is a good idea, but I think we're pushing the envelope here and just taking things too far here. --Locutus 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...I think having overarching categories, especially those that are more miscellaneous, categorized into one place where they can easily be found, would actually be helpful, and might even encourage users to look at categories that they weren't aware existed. --Shelwass 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Having a junk category isn't even remotely helpful, no matter how you look at it. Either they get categorized better or this category will get deleted. --Locutus 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. First of all I don't see this as a junk category where you put everything in that doesn't belong somewhere else. But as Shelwass already pointed out, some categories - if floating around the wiki alone - will never be found. Who has known about a Category:Jewels (currently under Minerals) or a [:Category:Superbeings]. Whether those individual categories make sense should be discussed somewhere else, but the fact that they are (almost) impossible to find (unless you're searching for them specifically, in which case you must know they exist) made me make this category. I agree that for some categories the question remains if they should or should not be in here (as I pointed out in my first post), but in general I think this wiki needs this category. It is - so to say - the root for all in-game material (as opposed to out-of-game rules/guidlines/... and ST reference material (techspecs, officer's manual)). So I don't see it as junk. It could be made into a portal, but that is not an option here as I understand it. If anyone has a good idea how to categorize these pages/categories or how to make them (easily) accessible otherwise please say so.--Sloeffler 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still at loss why you feel the need to fill the void regarding categories that can't be categorized under existing categories, is there some sort of a written rule saying that everything must be categorized? I'm all for categorizing this items, but I want them to be properly categorized, not just thrown under a misc category. --Locutus 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact I don't think that everything must be categorized, but I do think that everything should be (easily) accessible. Take for example the categories Weapons or Animals. A quick check revealed that nothing is linking there. I also checked for the pages in the category Animals: nothing is linking to either the category itself or the pages in it (assuming the "What links here" tool works). While this is essentially a totally different problem (the pages should be linked), it does show one particular issue here: even if linked, they might be linked from one or two pages out of more than 2000 - I'd call that a "weak link" in the sense that unless you're very lucky or know exactly what you're searching for, you'll never find it. I agree that some categories in here can/should be better categorized in other categories (I couldn't think of good ones, though), but these new categories would IMO fall into the Encyclopedia part of the wiki again - so for now I put everything here. The whole thing is more or less the attempt of a top-down approach: starting from a few "super categories" that are easy to find (i.e. linked from the main page), you can choose from a relatively small number the category that best fits the object you're looking. If you do this a few times, you can very efficiently find what you're looking for (even if you don't know exactly what it is - otherwise there is the search function). Additionally (and maybe equally importantly) you can easily find things you never knew existed (see some examples in my last post). For the programming geeks around here: see it as a (not quite binary) search/classification tree with a search time proportional to log(N) rather than N (roughly 11 rather than 2000). If you don't like this top-down approach, ok. But could somebody make a better suggestion then? --Sloeffler 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with this general concept. The wiki in its current state works well, if you know what you want to look for, or if you are just interested in accessing random pages. A table of content type page would be useful for those who may be interested in a topic but do not know of an exact entry to look for. I see this page acting as an overall table of content type entry. Whether it is the best setup, I do not know, but I do find reading the category lists easier on this page than on the categories page under the special page function.--Letum 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools