Following are some notes from Lonny on how we should categorize. This is incomplete... maybe it is enough to get an idea about it... will add more soon.
Some Background[edit source]
Wikipedia has the following namespaces, each with its own corresponding talk namespace:
- Article – Encyclopedia Area
- User – User area
- Wikipedia – Information about wikipedia
- Image – Information about media and the media itself which can be included in a page using the double square brackets
- MediaWiki – Interface text such as shown on upload, login and create pages
- Template – Text that can be called using the double curly brackets
- Help – Help on wikipedia pages
- Category – Displays categories of pages, and auto-lists those pages (and subcategories)
- Portal – “...help readers find and browse through articles related to a specific subject “
and each see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace for more.
A big difference between wikipedia and appropedia is that we have more Article Areas. Instead of just encyclopedic, we have additional areas such as Topic, Project, Organization, How to, etc.
Solutions[edit source]
I see four possible solutions:
- #Put it all together (jambalaya)
- #Use new namespaces (we need more namespace captain)
- #Use categories in somewhat novel ways (I've never seen a category like that before)
- #Use portals in somewhat novel ways (I've never seen a portal like that before)
Put it all together[edit source]
We could put how-tos, projects, theses, etc. all together with no differentiation. Under the category Adobe would be all things to do with Adobe.
Advantages[edit source]
- Seems similar to wikipedia.
- Easy to create.
Disadvantages[edit source]
- Difficult to navigate.
- I find this solution unacceptable, as it does not address our uniqueness.
Use new namespaces[edit source]
Under this scheme, the different areas would each get their own namespace. For instance, Thesis would be its own namespace. A page that is written as a Thesis would be in the namespace Thesis, written as Thesis:Nameofthesis. This page would then be categorized under the topics that it covered.
Advantages[edit source]
- May allow for added functions for different namespaces. For instance, the gallery function in the Namespace How to could possibly create larger thumbnails than in the other namespaces (which is something that I would find useful).
- Makes it very clear what type of content the reader is viewing.
Disadvantages[edit source]
- Difficult to implement.
- Confusing for creators.
- More for readers and editors to type in (and likewise more for other sites to link to).
- Possibly difficult to move pages across namespaces if needed.
Use categories[edit source]
Any content subject that would have pages categorized within it becomes a category. For example Category:Adobe contains the project DIF Adobe Senior Center and the organization Kleiwerks.
Content areas
- Project
- Topic
- Program
- How to
- Thesis
- Organization
- probably a few others
Subject areas These are the different categories under the Topic category.
- Earthen construction
- Solar power
- Wind power
- Public health
- endless more topics
A page may fit under multiple topic categories, but only under one content category. A page written as a thesis may be about public health and greywater. Therefore it is categorized as Category:Public health and Category:Greywater, but not under Category:Topics. In turn, the categories Category:Public health and Category:Greywater are placed under Category:Topics.
In addition, each category page has a same-title corresponding page in the article namespace that redirects to the category.
Advantages[edit source]
- Fits our uniqueness.
- Allows for multiple ways to navigate.
- Easy to implement.
- Easy to edit.
- This is my preferred method, with Namespaces being second.
Disadvantages[edit source]
- Somewhat different from wikipedia.
Portals[edit source]
I am unsure of what this could offer in terms of fitting our needs.
Responses[edit source]
In #Use categories, Lonny wrote:
- A page may fit under multiple topic categories, but only under one content category.
This is how I'd imagined it - I think your list of pros is fair. "Somewhat different to Wikipedia" doesn't seem like a big disadvantage to me, though, (if I've understood your proposal correnctly). We have multiple page types intended for readers (unlike Wikipedia), so I think this approach is as close to Wikipedia as we could expect. And it has a number of other advantages, so I support the #Use categories approach.
Re Portals: From what I've seen on Wikipedia, seem like something that takes a fair bit of work, but are worth doing if there's already plenty of good material and active editors on the relevant topic. I think we can start to develop these one at a time as our content develops. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 02:54, 23 October 2006 (PDT)