Why are you renaming categories from singular to plural, when the rest of the wikiweb uses singular categories, thus making Appropedia incompatible with the rest of the wikiweb? This seems a stupid thing to do.

I appreciate your interest. But why be anon for a discussion like this? Are you the same "anon" who commented earlier?
I'm not versed in the entire wikiweb, but focus on Wikipedia as a model. Singular category names at Wikipedia are hard to find. Indeed, it was the dominance of plural category names at Wikipedia that helped prompt our move to plural category names. Take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorical index and see if you truly find singular category names (for nouns that have natural plurals, which is our new naming policy). So, if the rest of the wikiweb is out of step with Wikipedia, then perhaps you're correct. Please feel free to offer some convincing specifics. On the other hand, if you have momentarily mixed up Category and Namespace, then we are in agreement. We have no intention of changing to plural namespace names. --CurtB 07:23, 20 February 2007 (PST)
By the way, I also just checked out Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories), which talks about both plural and singular names. Topical names ("Dance") should be singular, but collection-like categories (which are generally the case here at Appropedia) should be plural ("The Beatles Songs"). Perhaps we could have been more clear about which category names were getting the plural --CurtB 07:30, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Topic category names[edit source]

Guidelines[edit source]

The (draft) Appropedia naming policy for topic (subject) categories is captured in the bullets below.

  1. The category name should, of course, describe the category, and imply a collection of articles is within the category.
  2. Category names should be a word or short phrase. Simple and common words and phrases, that someone might search for, are best.
  3. Unambiguous names are preferred, so that names with multiple meanings should be avoided or, if possible, clarified by adding another word.
  4. If there is a choice between otherwise acceptable category names, and one implies a broader category, while the other implies a narrower category, the broader name will be preferred.
  5. When there is an option between a concept (abstract) name and a specific (tangible) name, the concept name is better, as long as it describes the category appropriately. This is because abstract names are generally slightly broader.
    • When there is no common or simple "concept name", the specific name is fine
    • Concept nouns normally don't need pluralization since it is natural to include multiple concrete examples within the concept
    • Specific nouns, when used, should normally be pluralized if the noun is countable. This is to support the implication that the category contains a collection of articles (not just one).

After reviewing the guidelines, spend a few minutes consideration on a category name, but don't overdo it. If you're really torn between name choices, post a question/comment on this page. If you're not torn, you probably have a good name. Even then, changing the name of a new category is not that difficult, so if others somehow have a preferred

Examples[edit source]

  • "Water purification" would be preferred over "Water purifiers"
    • "concept" preferred over "specific"
  • "Bicycling" would be preferred over "bicycles" and "cycling"
    • "Bicycling" is a concept which easily includes items like "bicycle trailers", while "Bicycles" would be less inclusive.
    • "cycling" has additional meanings, such as "iterating" and might also be confused with "recycling"
  • "Compost toilets" would be preferred over "Compost toilet".
    • A natural plural is preferred.
  • "Automobiles" would be preferred over "Automobile".
    • "Cars" is less specific, since it also refers to train cars and others. Probably make "cars" a redirect.
    • "Passenger vehicles" is a possibility if the desire is to include motorcycles, but not a natural category name.
    • "Driving" is an abstract noun, but too vague to be used as the category name in this case.
  • "Water" is preferred over "Waters"
    • Water is not "countable", and "Waters" is not a "natural" plural

Existing category names (including non-Topic names) that we "want" to change[edit source]

  • My list (CurtB)
    • Program to Programs
    • Topic to Topics
    • Project to Projects
    • Compost toilet to Compost toilets
  • User:Chriswaterguy's suggestions (after a quick look through Special:Categories:
    • Alternative building to Building
    • Food and Drink to Food and drink
    • PATB - meaning not obvious. Better to expand? Just use Practical Action?
    • Thesis - could move back to Theses - not exactly obvious though, esp to NESB (non-English speaking background) people. Might be better to have some kind of "Original research" category.
    • Uncommon Tropical Crops - if we keep the wording, we at least need to change the capitalization.
    • Land Use to Land use (if we find a way to move cats... otherwise just a note in the edit summary that User:Lyle Solla-Yates was the page's creator & main contributor.)

Comments on the Topic category naming policy[edit source]

"Provocative" questions to prompt commentary:

  • What other guidelines might help discern better choices?
  • What other illustrative examples should be included?

From a newbie with much Wikia experience[edit source]

I agree with nearly everything on this page! Good to see emphasis on "sentence case". My recent involvement with several Wikia has been dominated by copying seminal articles from Wikipedia then copying the parent categories (right up to the top level, almost - usually integrating with the somewhat simpler Wikia categories at high levels) and templates. My conclusion is that it is a good idea to use a Wikipedia category name exactly if it is much the same as a category you have or want to have, because WP has had categories since mid-2004 and has had time (and thousands of intelligent contributors) to iron out inconsistencies in style so that lists of categories have a predictable uniformity and people know what to expect and can even organise templates to speed things up here and there. Robin Patterson 07:16, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Category redirect[edit source]

I see that you now have a template:category redirect. It says that the unwanted category page should eventually be deleted; I suggest not: better to leave the unwanted category in place with its redirect pointer, in case someone else ignorantly re-creates it and nobody notices. Robin Patterson 07:16, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

These policies should be on a "project:" page[edit source]

Maybe they are now on a page such as project:category naming, but I was led here. Easier to categorise and to link to, if on their own page in the project namespace rather than on a user subpage. Robin Patterson 07:16, 27 May 2007 (PDT)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.