Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 5

message: If we're going to evaluate trees, it might be useful to:
* broaden the number of options,
* see what is more or less common,
* see whether any clearly have very little or very much support,
* see what can be easily adjusted or eliminated.
Vir, I only listed one or two of yours. This is not intended to be a slight, but you have so many possibilities and I don't know where they all stand.
: I suggested a two step process a half dozen times: First, we could use a relatively short-term focused decision to get a working set of topics based on the French Wikipedia front page main categories variant (or recently, the idea came up of combining an English wikipedia variant, the lists of list page topics, with the French categories); second, a follow-up complex process could be used which would be similar to what you outlined above. I repeated variants of this idea a number of times above and on various pages. This second suggested process never got too many comments, but I thought that Gflores, Martin and I were sort of expressing interest in doing the first focused step. 
: The long process will take a lot of time. I don't have time to particpate in it.
: The options which I *organized* are all in one place, here:   topic trees. That organized page draws on various of the elements you list below and adds links to addition work on organizing topic outlines. I think it is better for this info to be on a separate page with summaries and selected examples on the talk page instead of dumping in everything here.  
: If we choose to do the short process first (deliberating on a small set of long options based on the French and English Wikipedia top category versions), I can participate in a wrap up. If the long evaluation process starts happening intensely now, I have to step back from this process until summer at earliest, as I don't have time to participate. If there is a slow growth of the long process after a short intro, I can participate. However this works out, I trust it will be fruitful. Best, Vir 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thoughts. Does anyone have any specific objections to our current tree, that Martin and Vir have worked on? If not, maybe it would save us all time to just go with that. Maurreen 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Gflores Talk 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that works for me too for now. That tree's top categories are a revision of the French main page top categories. (Per recent discussions, I just changed spelling of "Art" to "Arts" there.) In addition, it works for me to do a gradual (months long) process of looking at and comparing lots of options for a revised category scheme (with wide input at some point). I think an improved design can be created. (And, there may be more than one such improvement that we want to implement.) Thanks for the suggestion, Vir 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trees, continued

message: ; current tree, mainly by Walkerma
*Art
*Culture & Society
*Everyday Life and Leisure
*Geography
*Natural Sciences & Mathematics
*Philosophy & Religion
*Social Sciences
*Technology & Applied Sciences
*Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?
**This is pretty good. But I would change "Art" to "Arts" or "Arts and Literature." Maurreen 00:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eight branches

message: ;Britannica Main Categories  (I've changed the original order to make it alphabetical. Maurreen 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ten main branches