On 4/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. I suggest that instead of arguing we each individually resolve to make our replies concise, quoting only what is absolutely necessary to convey our meaning and its context.

On 4/4/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote: In any case, for me, gmail hides the footer as "quoted text". Perhaps because of the long line above? I kind of agree with you, but containing the unsubscription link probably saves the mods a lot of administrivia. (Incidentally, I'm still trying to work out why one of my previous messages got filtered out for containing "potential administrivia") Obwikipedia: Subcategories really, really don't work. Why have we put up with them for so long? I was trying to categorise [[Brownstone]]. First I chose [[Category:building materials]]. Then I realised there was a subcat [[Category:Masonry]]. But why not go the whole hog, [[Category:Stone]]? Because there you end up in a category with 3 other members, none of which were real building materials. I ended up using both Masonry and Stone, violating the rule against using a cat and its subcat together. Steve

Justin Cormack wrote: I don't supposed you've seen the wonders that can be achieved with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php by any chance? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 4/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have. It is wonderful. But it's not integrated into MediaWiki. Perhaps all I really want is that if you add some subcategory to an article, all the parent categories are added automatically (perhaps in smaller text or something). Or perhaps I want a really tight definition of "subcategory", which doesn't seem to exist. There are at least two distinct meanings (and uses) of the relationship A = subcategory(B) (fictitious examples) - Definitive subcategories. Every item that could be tagged B could by definition be tagged A. For example, famous German artists/famous Germans - Fuzzy subsets: B itself is a kind of subdomain of A. e.g. Opera is a subdomain of Singing, but "Sydney Opera House" is not a kind of singing (but could well be categorised "Opera") The problem may be that categories sometimes mean "is a" and sometimes mean "is related to". This is weakly hinted at in the category guidelines, which distinguish between "Operas" as an "is a" category, and "Opera" as a "related to" category. Intriguingly, "Operas" has three subcategories, subcategories of which are used to tag actual operas several times. For example, Don Giovanni falls into Italian Operas, Operas by Mozart, and Operas, as well as the "related to" category Melodrama). And this is a *well-organised* categorisation system. Lastly, for some comic relief, check out the categories on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain Can you work out which categories are misapplied? :) Steve

On Apr 4, 2006, at 7:10 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I say we all boycott categories until tagging is implemented. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Mark Gallagher wrote: Hate to say it mate, but Gmail broke it for you :) See http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html for some potentially useful info... Yes. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP