Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents/Archive 1

message: ===:Category talk:Fundamental===
*:Category talk:Fundamental is the venue for discussion of the ontology of the Template:Categorybrowsebar which is on the Main Page as:
 
Everyone is welcome to discuss this ontology.
Note: When an introduction for a :Category:Fundamental category, or similar main category is empty, with no basic article, then Template:Catmore:See the overview article about  is a possible stub which should alert categorizers that there is no main Wikipedia article for the category , as would be the case for a category page with a red link.
=== sj's Proposal ===
For starters, we should create a wikiproject for this.
# As a first goal, we could get split up the other lang wikipedias and look at the cat schemes they use on their main pages.  The French schema, for instance, is very detailed and different from ours. 
# As a second goal, we could start working through the top-level topics currently listed on the main page, making them 
#* High-quality, in clarity, tone, imagery and format
#* Model articles, as overviews - demonstrations of what WP has to offer in each category
#* Consistent with their top-level category, and not redundant with other  top-level topics (currently not the case for all articles listed on the Main Page).
#*: see Wikipedia:Topic of the week for more.  +sj+ 02:12, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
=== Brent G's Proposal ===
Hi! I strongly recommend users interested in classification, as I am, check out Library classification. Here you will find some links to existing systems that are more versatile than the tedious linear systems of the Library of Congress classification or the Dewey Decimal System, both of which are fine for physical repositories of books, which have to be linear, but are woefully inadequate for a real knowledge database like the wikipedia. The Colon classification and the Universal Decimal Classification are interesting starts. But those are still limited by being designed for collections of physical documents.
:IIRC the DDS is subject to copyright and maybe it cannot be used on a free encyclopedia, check up on that. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:24, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)
I have written a proposal for a classification system for wikipedia on User:Brent Gulanowski/Categorization. Brent Gulanowski 16:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Schemes 

message: Hi! I strongly recommend users interested in classification, as I am, check out Library classification. Here you will find some links to existing systems that are more versatile than the tedious linear systems of the Library of Congress classification or the Dewey Decimal System, both of which are fine for physical repositories of books, which have to be linear, but are woefully inadequate for a real knowledge database like the wikipedia. The Colon classification and the Universal Decimal Classification are interesting starts. But those are still limited by being designed for collections of physical documents.
:IIRC the DDS is subject to copyright and maybe it cannot be used on a free encyclopedia, check up on that. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:24, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)
I have written a proposal for a classification system for wikipedia on User:Brent Gulanowski/Categorization. Brent Gulanowski 16:58, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brent G's Proposal 

message: Add your category scheme below!
Let's discuss the different category schemes on Talk
----
A three-part category scheme attributed to Jefferson:
* Memory :  Countries of the World -- History -- Language -- Quotes -- Religion -- United States
* Reason :  HumanComputerInteraction -- Mathematics and Statistics -- Philosophy -- Politics -- Science -- Technology
* Imagination :  Architecture -- Arts and Entertainment -- Dance -- Literature -- Music -- Recreation -- Sports
Found while perusing the Library of Congress website:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/
Thomas Jefferson, whose personal library became the core of the Library of Congress, arranged his books into three types of knowledge, corresponding to Francis Bacon's three faculties of the mind: Memory (History), Reason (Philosophy),  and Imagination (Fine Arts).
----
JoshuaGrosse says: Off the top of my head, I would propose a different system:
:Understanding the way the world works - Philosophy, Mathematics and Statistics, Natural Sciences
:Understanding what's actually in it - Biology, History, Geography
:Making stuff for practical use - Technology
:Making stuff for its own ends - Arts and Entertainment,Mathematics
----
We all know the familiar dot classification design of the Usenet.
* alt.activism
* alt.activism.ecology
* alt.arts.origami
* ...
* biz.general
* biz.healthcare
* ...
* comp.databases
* comp.databases.adabas
* comp.lang.c
* comp.lang.c++
* ...
* comp.programming
*
* comp.sys.arm
* comp.sys.atari
* comp.sys.att
* ...
* rec.arts.origami
* rec.arts.puppetry
* ...
* sci.anthropology
* sci.archaeology
why not figure out a similar navigation system ?
Let's look at a proposed HomePage :
* history.* (time) -> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/history_category
* world.* (physical world - geography) -> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/world_category
* computers.* (computer related) -> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/computer_category
* human.* (physical humans, not their mind) -> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/man_category
* mind.* (works about man's mind) -> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/mind_category
* science.* (empirical knowledge) http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/
* language.* (???) http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/
* anima.* (living world around man) http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/
* culture.* (culture itself and sociology) http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/
* rec.* (recreation) http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/
* and more ? It is open for discussion
And again on http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/history_category page that is
labeled "history.*"
* history.world_war_1.* http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ww2_category
* history.world_war_2.* http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/ww1_category
* history.roman_empire.* http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/roman_empire_category
and so on...
I think it would be great fun for all of us Wikipedians if such or similar
system could be implemented in the inner workings of Wikipedia software.
Automatic links feature of Wiki is a revolutionary achievment but
wiki was never designed to cater for projects of such magnitude and complexity
especially where good classification and navigation is crucial.
I wonder if TopicMaps is a viable option to solve classification and
navigation problems (in the future).
Alternatively maybe beside Page_A.db Page_A.lck there should be a Page_A.cls
files holding classification info. Just a thought.
 --User:Kpjas
----
I have installed another slightly different scheme in the German version of the wikipedia which is I think a compromise between the standard version and new ones. My intention was to shift the standard somewhat from the purely scientific world view. Three main parts stress this view. Others have or might have a different world view or world feeling. This is even symbolized in the use of some words. Although the german homepage now more looks like a Portal I find this more appropriate. Which should NOT be misinterpreted by anybody to shift the content which should remain being encyclopedic (objective rsp. encompassing different views).
Others should find alternate schemes or portals direct from the entry of wikipedia.
Another scheme is functionally different. I have tried to make something more suitable for direct search. So consecutive pages will supply something if someone knows he searches for a person. ..
--StefanRybo
----
Above text moved from main article, as discussions were no longer very active Enchanter
----
Shouldn't wikipedia have a category for International Relations, near or inside the Political Science category?
In my opinion, International Relations, even being a category that is related to many other already existing ones, like economy, law and political science, it deserves a category on its own. Terms like Globalization, Trading Blocs, International Law, International Organizations, WTO, International Regimes, Soft Laws, should be in it's own category, too.
What do you think?
The point is, I am an International Relations student myself, and, as a glad user of the pedia, I miss this category.
Thanks
Forgive me if I'm asking something lame - I am just a newbie here...
p.s.: As i can see, there's a sub category in the Library of the Congress - JZ. BTW, I am willing to make that term - International Relations.≠</span>wiser 17:05, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
No.  That's not at all what I'm looking for.  Maybe it would be helpful if we thought about calling it "The Concise Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia: Concise."  The whole idea is that I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of articles about the various episodes of various TV shows to get to the "good stuff," which I consider to be the "cornerstone" ideas I discussed above.  The subpages of the Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics are nearly impossible to wade through in an efficient manner.  I want to get away from the kinds of lists that I find throughout Wikipedia where I have to bypass hundreds of titles of every recording Motown put out as I scroll toward Mozart.  I wouldn't mind seeing Mozambique between Motown and Mozart, but the endless minutiae has to go.N2lect2el 17:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other schemes

message: Is there a way to perform the set intersection operation on two categories in wikipedia?
For example the page on Monkey Island is a member of the category '1990_computer_and_video_games'. It would be favourable to have such a page as a member of the categories '1990' and 'computer and video games'. The fact that the game is a video game from 1990 would be inplicit in it's membership of the two categories. If a user performs the set intersection operation on the two categories '1990' and 'computer and video games', a list of computer and video games from 1990 would be generated.
Also consider the page List_of_Irish_poets. If poets were categorised in the category 'poet', and Irish people were categories in the category 'Irish', by performing the set intersection of the categories 'poet' and 'Irish' a list of Irish poets would be dynamically generated.
: Wikipedia:Category math feature -- Zondor 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Intersection 

message: Warning! Wikipedia:Category schemes is nothing but a List.  Therefore, it subject to deletion since a category would do a much better job of presenting this information. (Ha, ... Hah, Ha!)
Isn't it queer, that when humans want to easily convey information they overwhelmingly choose to use a bulleted list that clearly shows relationships? -- John Gohde 22:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Alert! 

message: After about a month of editing articles at Wikipedia, I’m finally getting a general understanding of how the articles are related to each other and how to navigate to them.  And that’s only because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure it out.  Now, you might say that I’m just particularly slow in such things as finding my own aspects of the situation, but I dare say the navigation structure of this web site deserves at least half the credit.  It’s not that a very impressive amount of thought and effort hasn’t gone into addressing the issue, but I believe most visitors would agree it still needs a little work.
My suggestion is simple.  Add :template:Categorybrowsebar to the top of every Wikipedia page.  The amount of useful information crammed into these two lines is invaluable and should be available from any page.  If it’s placed at the top of every (or at least one) style sheet, and possibly reduced in size a bit, it would be universally accessible and take up a minimum of page space.  Most importantly, novices and experts alike would have the full range of Wikipedia’s category schemes at their fingertips no matter which page they were reading.
If this suggestion more appropriately should be placed on a different discussion page, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction. – RDF 16:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[:template:Categorybrowsebar]] to top of every Wikipedia page 

message: Wikipedia:Category schemes looks to me like an attempt to use bullets gone terribly wrong. One should use bullets to list related items, however, it is not clear at all what the items:
*Lists of articles
*Using the Category mechanism (see Wikipedia:Categorization)
*Topical
*Meta (indexes of pages for Wikipedia editors)
have in common to be listed that way. This not to talk about items within items, all the way to the third level. Somebody, please write this page in normal English. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that professional librarians are contributing to Wikipedia, perhaps you can direct your appeal to them. --Ancheta Wis 11:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I cleaned it up a bit, but it's an important enough so that it still needs work. Xhin 16:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I cleaned up some more. The "List of reference tables" definition still needs a complete rewrite though, and the "Category system" section possibly needs an overhaul? -Quiddity 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cleanup 

message: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 10#Category:Categories. Courtland 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Categories]] up for deletion 

message: Does anyone have an extensive list of knowledge criteria in the form of multiple state independent variables that can be applied by each author to his or her article?  ...IMHO (Talk) 20:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of knowledge criteria