More actions
Spencerian (talk | contribs) Categories for Technology |
→Categories for Technology: reply |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Were we dividing the Technology and Terminology categories to separate TOS and RDM areas? In the past we had only one classification. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:04, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | Were we dividing the Technology and Terminology categories to separate TOS and RDM areas? In the past we had only one classification. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:04, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
: Actually, I just threw that cat in there without thinking about it. So, right now, the answer is "no", unless there are objectors to keeping these categories "as is". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 14:25, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
::I'd move that we keep the technologies (TOS) and add technologies. That'd seem to be in keeping with the model laid out in the talk of [[Battlestar Wiki:Categories]], whereby one would be able to either view "all technology", or just view the technology of the particular series. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:29, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
:::Basically, we should have a general category [[:Category:Technology]], with sub categories to [[:Category:Technology (RDM)]] and [[:Category:Technology (TOS)]]? Or just tag pages with both the general technology cat and then the specific technology series cat? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 14:35, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
::::(Kosh voice) Yes. (To both.) The series specific Technology categories would be subcats of technology, but unfortunately (well, kind of) the parent category doesn't list the contents of child categories in its main area (I could see that getting messy quickly, though). So you'd have to tag the page with both tech and tech (TOS) to get it to show up on both. The principle of single inheritance would only apply to categories, not articles, so articles could get tagged with whatever categories (and subcategories) that it makes sense for them to be part of. We should probably re-kickstart the category discussion to solicit more opinions, but that's my interpretation of the scheme that Farago layed out. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:06, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
:::::I think that the discusison on categories should be definitely renewed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 15:18, 11 September 2006 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:18, 11 September 2006
Categories for Technology
Were we dividing the Technology and Terminology categories to separate TOS and RDM areas? In the past we had only one classification. --Spencerian 14:04, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Actually, I just threw that cat in there without thinking about it. So, right now, the answer is "no", unless there are objectors to keeping these categories "as is". -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:25, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- I'd move that we keep the technologies (TOS) and add technologies. That'd seem to be in keeping with the model laid out in the talk of Battlestar Wiki:Categories, whereby one would be able to either view "all technology", or just view the technology of the particular series. --Steelviper 14:29, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Basically, we should have a general category Category:Technology, with sub categories to Category:Technology (RDM) and Category:Technology (TOS)? Or just tag pages with both the general technology cat and then the specific technology series cat? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:35, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- (Kosh voice) Yes. (To both.) The series specific Technology categories would be subcats of technology, but unfortunately (well, kind of) the parent category doesn't list the contents of child categories in its main area (I could see that getting messy quickly, though). So you'd have to tag the page with both tech and tech (TOS) to get it to show up on both. The principle of single inheritance would only apply to categories, not articles, so articles could get tagged with whatever categories (and subcategories) that it makes sense for them to be part of. We should probably re-kickstart the category discussion to solicit more opinions, but that's my interpretation of the scheme that Farago layed out. --Steelviper 15:06, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- I think that the discusison on categories should be definitely renewed. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 15:18, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- (Kosh voice) Yes. (To both.) The series specific Technology categories would be subcats of technology, but unfortunately (well, kind of) the parent category doesn't list the contents of child categories in its main area (I could see that getting messy quickly, though). So you'd have to tag the page with both tech and tech (TOS) to get it to show up on both. The principle of single inheritance would only apply to categories, not articles, so articles could get tagged with whatever categories (and subcategories) that it makes sense for them to be part of. We should probably re-kickstart the category discussion to solicit more opinions, but that's my interpretation of the scheme that Farago layed out. --Steelviper 15:06, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- Basically, we should have a general category Category:Technology, with sub categories to Category:Technology (RDM) and Category:Technology (TOS)? Or just tag pages with both the general technology cat and then the specific technology series cat? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:35, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
- I'd move that we keep the technologies (TOS) and add technologies. That'd seem to be in keeping with the model laid out in the talk of Battlestar Wiki:Categories, whereby one would be able to either view "all technology", or just view the technology of the particular series. --Steelviper 14:29, 11 September 2006 (CDT)