On 6/7/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/4/06, Roger Luethi
<collector(a)hellgate.ch> wrote:
For instance, how do you connect the districts of
Paris to the category
Paris? What is a subset of the parent attribute "Paris": "Districts of
Paris", or "Quartier Latin", or neither? Does it bother you if the article
on a French district is now in a subcategory of "Capitals in Europe"?
[[Category:Paris]] is a theme, not an attribute, so [[Category:Paris]]
should not be a subcategory of [[Category:Capitals in Europe]].
Is it practical to have people debating whether something is a theme or
an attribute?
There's nothing to debate. Either the subjects of articles within a
category have an "is a" relationship, and are attributes, or they
don't, and are themes.
[[Category:Women]] could be a subcategory of [[Category:Woman]].
Making an attribute a subcategory of a theme is allowed, it is the
reverse that is not allowed.
Avoid distinctions that will have to be re-explained every time another
newbie joins.
Why? The MoS is filled with rules that have to be re-explained every
time another newbie joins. Do you capitalize "External Links" or do
you write "External links"? The MoS says it should be the latter, but
this is by no means obvious.
In order to lower the learning curve for newbies, should we abandon
all attempts at having a consistent style?
In any event,
things wouldn't be perfect. Ultimately the best
solution would involve fixing the category system itself, a process
which should be approached carefully so as to avoid making the same
mistakes all over again. The advantage of my proposal to not allow
themes as subcategories of attributes is that it can be implemented
today, without much disruption, and without modifying any code. Plus,
it allows for a relatively straightforward upgrade path when the
category system is fixed. The proposal itself is not the fix, it's a
temporary workaround.
As an alternative, it would probably be possible to do all of this
even without enforcing the subcategory rule. But all purely attribute
categories would have to be identified as such. I'll have to think
about that.
One can work towards this, but any enforcement is a bit like passing a
law that requires everybody to think logically.
Not at all. All that's required is that people who do think logically
are allowed to fix things up and have somewhere to point to if they
are challenged.
Anthony