MusicBrainz Wiki talk:Categories

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 23:12, 25 October 2005 by Shepard (talk | contribs) (fixed <nowiki> (Imported from MoinMoin))
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discussion about Categories

There are two issues here. The first thing is general: What Categories do we need, are they good the way they are... The second relates to the BigMess of pages that deal with 'moderating issues'. Those probably need to be rearranged before we can give them meaningful Categories. --DonRedman



General Listing and Discussion of Categories

  • -- Personal pages. These are important, because they backlink to all the pages a person had edited. So please create a personal page and sign your edits with your WikiName.
  • -- For pages about MusicBrainz features and implementation. This one is getting huge. Maybe we should split it.
  • -- For discussion threads. Pages will often be in this and some other category.
  • -- This is a bit redundant with FrequentlyAskedQuestions but I suppose that's ok.
  • -- For additional info pages that someday may go into the database.
  • -- For pages describing, proposing, or discussing the style guidelines.
    • -- For the official pages describing the accepted style guidelines.
  • -- For pages describing, proposing, or discussing the editing process & guidelines.
    • -- For documentation of different edit (moderation) types.
  • -- For pages with descriptions of other related software, resources, or external links.
  • -- For metadiscussion about this Wiki.
  • and of course, which includes all of the above, plus any which aren't yet listed here.


Some other proposed Categories:

  • -- For pages describing implementation details of interest only to developers.

The Big Mess

There are many pages in the Wiki that deal with "moderating issues". But moderating is BadTerminology and "Issues" is a bad WikiName, hence we end up with a BigMess. DonRedman didn't know how to name these pages or what category to assign to them. TarragonAllen proposed that we create an EditingGuidelines page to organize them, and Dupuy createdto categorize them. However, there are still pages in the the BigMess for which those suggestions aren't right, because sometimes they blur into development, style or FrequentlyAskedQuestions.


 

Note

There are still pages likein the Wiki. They were part of a (rather ugly but well meant) hack by Dupuy. I deleted the whole set of pages because it breaks the. Categories are very straightforward and easy to understand if there are no hacks around them. People do not even need an explanation on how to create categories, they just look at how a category page works. That is enough. If they write a page they can just add a category at the bottom, whether it already exists or not. This simplicity is quite important to the Wiki, because like this the categories are easily kept up to date.

So now this page links to all categories although it is truly of. I think we can live with that. --DonRedman

  • I can live with the simpler category pages, but despite what DonRedman says, it's not enough to "just add a category at the bottom, whether it already exists or not" since the category page must exist in order to search for pages in that category. Furthermore, unless the category page is inand linked from this page, it's not that likely to be used for searching by anyone. @alex
    • I've also found an even uglier hack for preventing backlinks; you can use a URL link like [http:?CandidateForDeletion Candidate­ForDeletion] ([http:?CandidateForDeletion CandidateForDeletion]) and no backlink will be generated. While far more hideous than the other scheme, it doesn't require any special knowledge by those who want to use categories in the normal way. @alex