Cunnan talk:Categorization

I've been thinking about the way we name categories and it seems to me that we should use the same naming scheme as for ordinary pages. So rather that having Category:SCA kingdoms and Category:Modern kingdoms we would have Category:Kingdoms (SCA) and Category:Kingdoms (modern). This would also allow us to use some 'tricks' when editing such as writing [[:Category:Kingdoms (SCA)|]] and getting Kingdoms.

We would of course have to go back and recategorize some pages but there isn't any need to rush and we now have automatically generated lists of what needs to be changed. :) - Tobin 16:22, 28 Dec 2004 (CST)

Sounds good. Since we can have muliple categories, I was just getting all the sca groups (branches, guilds, households, everything) together initially in one big category, of which several obvious categories would encompass sections of this mega category. And we mustn't forget there are some modern non-sca reneactment groups that get a mention in this wiki.

Also I feel kinda funny going Kingdoms (medieval) knowing that some might be in china, or renaisance, or clasical kingdoms. Should we be calling the roman's medieval? In english history medieval is post anglo saxon, pre tudor, i believe. ie approx 12-14thC But what tag do we use instead? - ancient (that means earlier), historical (well so are kindoms of the early 20th C), etc?

And to make the categories more useful, should some of them should be easier to find from the front page? Tiff

Category:Kingdoms (medieval) does seem strange. Perhaps Category:Kingdoms (period)? The best possible solution would be to put kingdoms into Category:Kingdoms and Category:Period and automatically have a Period + Kingdom category created but the software doesn't support this (though I'd imagine it might one day).

Perhaps the 'main' link for each topic on the main page should go to the appropriate category?

Tobin

How about Category:Kingdoms (historical)?

Conrad Leviston 04:52, 29 Dec 2004 (CST)