This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
Hello, it has been brought to my attention that this wikis category tree is in a state of disarray and could use a little organization. At the moment the tree consists of a lot of micros (categories that hold pages) and little to no macros (categories that hold more specific micro categories). I have also notice the lack of a Meta (Supermacro (base of the tree)). Now this may not seem all that big of a deal as the current tree works just fine. And that's true, it does serve it's purpose even though it's messy.
Why would we take the effort to change it up now? After all, it isn't broken.
The main reason that wikis have category trees is to help with a number of things. It helps improve the accuracy of the wikis search bar as pages can mlre easily be found and grouped. It helps SEO (search engine optimization) because search spiders can mkre easily find all of the content on your wiki. Strolling off of the search path it aids in overall site maintenance as categories can be more easily sought out.
So what exactly does a category tree look like? It sort of looks like the following XML representation.
<supermacro title="Meta">
<macro title="Weapons">
<micro title="Laser">
<article title="Laser Rifle" />
<article title="Laser Pistol" />
</micro>
<micro title="Plasma">
<article title="Plasma Rifle" />
<article title="Plasma Pistol" />
</micro>
</macro>
<macro title="Factions">
<macro title="Brotherhood of Steel">
<micro title="Locations">
<article title="The Citadel" />
<article title="Abandoned BoS Bunker" />
</micro>
<micro title="Quests">
<article title="BoS Quest 1" />
<article title="BoS Quest 2" />
</micro>
</macro>
</macro>
</supermacro>
Lil' Miss Rarity ]Open Source[ (talk)
Support[]
- It's supposed to be this way. You shouldn't have the same article in Category:Fallout: New Vegas locations and Category:Hidden Valley. Category:Hidden Valley is already under Category:Fallout: New Vegas locations. It's proper organization. I have already fixed the F:NV characters pages, but I was told to hold off on FO3 characters pages, and I really don't understand why we insist on keeping it the way we have it. Anons and other users don't need a full list of characters in the main category, otherwise what is the point of the page Fallout: New Vegas characters? Into the wild blue yonder... 21:41, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
- - Just because something is not broken doesn't mean there is not room for improvement. If you have a solution, then I have no reason to say no to you. Some Assembly Required! 21:37, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I've been working on this for a while now, and it's way too big of a job for one person. I'll assist in any way that's possible if you've found a solution better than manually re-catting everything. A Follower Talk 21:39, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed this is how it already was. If it isn't this way then by all means I support its fixing. Although I am afraid I do not know how to do so exactly. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 01:08, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I was under the assumption our tree already worked like this, but apparently not. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:34, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral[]
Oppose[]
Comments[]
The disarray of our category tree is something I've been wanting to address. We have a poorly structured category tree that includes too many categories that have both sub-categories and content pages in them. What I would like, while I am gone for about the next two weeks on vacation, is for the wiki to discuss a top-down review of the category tree and see if there's support to reorganize it along the lines Rarity has shown above. The ideal would be a meta category with branches of parent (or macro) categories of descending focus ending with the lowest level of category (content or micro categories) containing content pages. One thing we MUST keep in mind as we explore this is how categories effect the mobile display. Each parent category branch must have as few steps as possible to quickly navigate to the content categories. Please discuss this and I'd like to review what the consensus is on 17Feb2014. Thank you. The Gunny 21:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
Last weekend I was checking up the categories and they were absolutely chaotic. The Article content ones are decent enough, even if not perfect, but the internal stuff like templates and category categories have lots basic errors like orphaned categories, dead end categories, split end categories, looping categories (categories categorizing themselves) and so forth. I started doing some work on them but decided ad-hoc quickfixes without proper coordination is pointless and ultimately wasted work. But if we're going to make an actual wiki-wide organized effort, I'm completely behind this.
Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 23:51, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
- You've seen what I saw. And that's why this needs to have a top-down approach. First we decide whether we have to do something, then we decide how we're going to do it and make a complete plan. We publish a full category tree so everyone's on the same page, and then finally we correct all the categories. We'll also have to come to grips about consistency in category name display. I've seen so much [[Category:Foo]], [[Category:Foo|{{PAGENAME}}]] and [[Category:All Foos|Foo]] to realize we need to cover this aspect, too. The Gunny 00:51, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
I'll be publishing a full XML category tree later on this week so everyone can see the plan and we can discuss what revisions need to be made. Lil' Miss Rarity ]Open Source[ (talk) 03:42, February 6, 2014 (UTC)