[Wikipedia-l] Analyzing and Visualizing the Semantic Coverage of Wikipedia

Sat Sep 2 08:27:44 UTC 2006

What are you talking about, redundant?? It's called structure, man!

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/CategoryOverviewIndex.htm

Our category system serves many purposes which sometimes clash, but
surprisingly infrequently, IMO.

Good general rule:don't create a category until it's needed. Therefore
it's not at all surprising that categories other than 'leaves' have
contents.

Why is everyone so obsessed with cleanup? It's not even fun, let alone
necessary (most of the time).

cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 02/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> And wouldn't there be a lot of database space taken up by redundant
> categories like this? We could have articles for them, maybe, but at
> this rate we'll need to start 'WikiProject WikiDbCleanup'. If there
> are 12,000 categories, that has to make up a significant body of data.
>
> On 9/2/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/09/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wait, isn't that encouraged? I had thought that most categories were
> > > supposed to categorize categories, and only the terminal categories
> > > were supposed to have articles in them - ex. [[Category:Free
> > > software]] should have only categories in it, not articles on
> > > software.
> >
> >
> > Eh? I don't recall that being required at all. Else you'll end up with
> > a lot of "other x" subcats.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>