Help talk:Categorization

From FamilySearch Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
(added a rant)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
----
 
----
  
On each category page we create, we should add text to the category page which tells where we got the heading or what our decision making process was in taking ideas from FHLC, LC, and other sources to create the new heading/category.&nbsp; That way, people who are tempted to rename a category can at least see the thought process that went into the name so far. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 08:30, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br><br>
+
On each category page we create, we should add text to the category page which tells where we got the heading or what our decision making process was in taking ideas from FHLC, LC, and other sources to create the new heading/category.&nbsp; That way, people who are tempted to rename a category can at least see the thought process that went into the name so far. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 08:30, 25 January 2008 (MST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
Realizing just how huge the issue of categorization is, I took a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories to try to figure out what information we need on our site.
 +
 
 +
I need help!
 +
 
 +
This page is 5297 words long. If pasted into MS Word, it would take up 17 pages.
 +
 
 +
Now I know what you're thinking: "C'mon Mike, what are you worried about? Our users can't possibly need all that information." And I agree. But now try reading it. There are some issues you can pretty easily redline, saying "This is advanced stuff we won't need until the site matures." But really. Try to cut it down to its simplest elements. Try to whittle it down to, say, three or four screens worth of information. You'll find yourself cutting information that our editors will be asking for within weeks months.
 +
 
 +
So the knee-jerk reaction may be "Okay, let's just make a simple page on our wiki that links to the one on WikiPedia and let our users use their guidelines." But it's not that simple, either — the page contains the following elements which give information that's not germaine to our site, such as:
 +
 
 +
* Examples that are non-genealogical (it's hard for the reader to imagine how these examples would apply to our genealogical content)
 +
* Links and processes which rely on bots we don't have.
 +
* Links and processes which rely on templates we don't have.
 +
* Links and processes which rely on tags we don't employ.
 +
* ...and all these require a myriad of other supporting pages we don't have.
 +
 
 +
And there's another problem. Since we don't use the GNU license, we can't even copy sections of the text and republish them on our site. So everything will have to be written from scratch to avoid violating fair use. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 15:57, 25 January 2008 (MST)
 +
 
 +
<br><br>

Revision as of 22:57, 25 January 2008

After adding your suggestion or question about categorization procedures, please add 4 tildes (~) to the end of your entry. This is a fast way to enter your name, date and time.

Thank you for your contribution!



We need to add tips on how the Library of Congress Authorities (subject headings catalog online) helps to find useful, standardized category titles. Ritcheymt 08:24, 24 January 2008 (MST)


On each category page we create, we should add text to the category page which tells where we got the heading or what our decision making process was in taking ideas from FHLC, LC, and other sources to create the new heading/category.  That way, people who are tempted to rename a category can at least see the thought process that went into the name so far. Ritcheymt 08:30, 25 January 2008 (MST)


Realizing just how huge the issue of categorization is, I took a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories to try to figure out what information we need on our site.

I need help!

This page is 5297 words long. If pasted into MS Word, it would take up 17 pages.

Now I know what you're thinking: "C'mon Mike, what are you worried about? Our users can't possibly need all that information." And I agree. But now try reading it. There are some issues you can pretty easily redline, saying "This is advanced stuff we won't need until the site matures." But really. Try to cut it down to its simplest elements. Try to whittle it down to, say, three or four screens worth of information. You'll find yourself cutting information that our editors will be asking for within weeks months.

So the knee-jerk reaction may be "Okay, let's just make a simple page on our wiki that links to the one on WikiPedia and let our users use their guidelines." But it's not that simple, either — the page contains the following elements which give information that's not germaine to our site, such as:

  • Examples that are non-genealogical (it's hard for the reader to imagine how these examples would apply to our genealogical content)
  • Links and processes which rely on bots we don't have.
  • Links and processes which rely on templates we don't have.
  • Links and processes which rely on tags we don't employ.
  • ...and all these require a myriad of other supporting pages we don't have.

And there's another problem. Since we don't use the GNU license, we can't even copy sections of the text and republish them on our site. So everything will have to be written from scratch to avoid violating fair use. Ritcheymt 15:57, 25 January 2008 (MST)