Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 6

message: I think this  Category sets outline offers a scalable category system that is structurally sturdy. This system was inspired during writing & discussions here of alternating revisions of category sets. The linked page outlines sets increasing in size from 2-fold to 4-, 8-, 12-fold and so on up to 32-fold sets.  
The categories sets increase from very general knowledge and experience categories by gradually adding less general categories. Without my conscious intention, the 8-fold and 12-fold sets are very similar to several of the English Wikipedia top level categories on the list of topic lists and list of reference tables pages. Also, the 8-fold set is the same as Martin's  Core Topic Tree with the exception of replacing "Everyday Life" with "History" and editing naming of categories a bit. 
The 8-fold set is almost identical to the revision of 6A in the note above -- the only change being to combine "Natural Sciences" and "Technology", as in:
8-fold category set / Revision of Option 6A 
* Arts 
* Philosophy & Religion
* Geography
* History
* Mathematics
* Natural Sciences & Technology
* Social Sciences
* Society
There are other possible classification systems (that can be explored), but as this is close to what is in place in the English Wikipedia...
For now, I recommend we go with this set or something between this and the 12-fold set linked above.  Any favorite categories that aren't in the above, probably emerge in the larger sets. Anything that doesn't seem to fit above can be thought of as resting in the largest "catch all" categories "Society" and "Natural Sciences" (which would be better labeled "Science" perhaps, to serve as a catch all for engineering, medicine, etc.).  
If you like, take a look at the progression up through about 16 or 20-fold sets on the category set page. I think you'll see a deep structure that makes sense. It is imminent in the progression from the 2 to 4 to 8-fold sets. Culture, Society, Science & Technology and Indexical (or locational) Knowledge (such as geography) are four basic categories that organize the unfolding of larger sets, in a balanced way. 
So, given the close similarity of the above to the English Wikipedia category sets mentioned above and to Martin's tree and to the revisions of 6A between Maureen and I, I think we're nearing a finished result. Any comments? Suggested edits?
*Adding this: Here is the 12-fold set for easy reference:
**arts - language and literature (New) - philosophy and religion
**everyday life (New) - society - social sciences
**mathematics - natural sciences - engineering and technology (New)
**geography - history - references and/or other classification systems (or all portals) (New) --Vir 05:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to see science and technology separated - based on what I've seen from WikiProject contacts, those categories are both pretty large - so I think I prefer the 9-fold "revised 6A above. What do others think?  Should we offer both the 8 and the 9 to the main WP1.0 group for their opinions? Walkerma 04:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with the sci-tech split or any variant that adds to the 8-fold set any of the new 12-fold cats.  (See addition of 12-fold set above). As a lot more articles are added to an outline, one might wish to use larger sets of top categories. When one gets to a 20-fold set or more then it seems best to organizize categories under the 4-fold category structure of, briefly, culture, society, science & tech, and location knowledge (need better name). The new categories added in the 12-fold set are noted in an added comment just above. --Vir 05:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this 10-fold one, we can go with engineering.  Let's do what you suggest and propose these to the main 1.0 folks for comment, if Maurreen and others agree. Walkerma 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Groovey. In case the above flies, I'm going to start on the proposal write up (to try to succinctly summarize the underlying issues -- hmm, is that doable?). --Vir 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ps. I created a project page for the category set page, Category sets, and added it to the list of core topics sub-pages at the top of the Core topics page. This will be linked in the proposal write up. --Vir 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Vir/sandbox/Category_sets| Category sets]]  and final "tree top"

message: Please see note at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Maurreen 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiprojects and core topics

message: I'd like to suggest that any branch should have at least three items on it. An exception could be made if we have "Miscellaneous", which could have just two items. Maurreen 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I give up. Maurreen 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Leaves" on a branch

message: I put up a note on the team's main talk page about sorting by Wikiprojects. Maurreen 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree quite strongly with this idea. There is a much better way to proceed. We have been refining a top level categorization system here that is in line with general practice in the English wikipedia, including some ideas from French Wikipedia main page categories. We are near closure on the process. I propose that we decide and then apply our refined category set (with whatever tweaks we make to it) to the top level sorting of the wikiprojects page. Let's not interrupt the almost completed process of deciding on what categories to use. See points relating to this in the post immediately above. --Vir 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting by Wikiprojects