Forum:Categories and redundancy

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Overview[]

Hey everyone, Jasper here. In the mist of the soon to arrive Fallout 4 I want to talk to you a little about categories. Right now the way we categorize pages is in two camps.

1. All categories that page logically fits in to (e.g. a human in Fallout would be in both "Category: Fallout Characters" and "Category: Fallout Human Characters")
2. In only the most specific categories (e.g. a human in Fallout would be in only "Category: Fallout Human Characters).

There are benefits to both. The former allows people to navigate to similar pages easily via categories, where as the latter avoids redundancy. With Fallout 4 coming we need to pick which one we're going to use

Our category use a tree system, which flows logically. For example;

• "Category: Fallout human characters" is in both "Category: Human characters" and "Fallout characters".

Basically do we include all categories a page logically fits in to (regardless of redundancy) or do we avoid redundancy and only include the most specific categories. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 18:25, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[]

Since I've been saying it for years, I obviously believe that articles should be in the most specific categories, and only the most specific categories. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 19:15, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be much discussion at this point. I will quote from our very own policies:

The only discussion pertinent after reading that should be: Do we change the current policy? As it stands, I believe our current policy is the proper way to categorize. Categories are our wiki's filing cabinet. Let's say you got a drawer for bills. In that drawer you don't have a folder for all bills and one for the electric bills. You put the electric bills in their own folder. Maybe even one folder for each year. That's how categories are supposed to work. Articles, for the most part, unless they are overview articles, should ALWAYS go in the lowest category in any given tree. The Gunny   19:53, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

The policy only refers to game specific. Not the most specific in general. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:57, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Logically, I'd say just do the most specific, like Gunny pointed out. For the older games, I'd set a bot on it so we don't have to waste time on it, and for the new game, i would just go on like we've been doing for FO3 and FNV. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:03, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper. Can you give me an example of a page that is categorized in the both the most game specific cat of a tree, as well as another cat of the same tree? I'd really like to see this to get an idea of why someone would do that. The Gunny   20:14, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Cleo. She is in "Category:Fallout human characters", "Category:Fallout characters" and "Category:Hub characters". The most game specific are both "Category:Fallout human characters" and "Category:Fallout characters" as they specify the game, but "Category:Fallout human characters" is a sub cat of "Category:Fallout characters". JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:16, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking in support of Jasper, I have encountered many examples, both in articles, image files, and audio files, where there is a large amount of redundancy in the categories. I can spend a day or two over a weekend or during the week doing nothing but correcting these redundancies myself, but I have been hesitant to do so due to a current atmosphere of believe that this redundancy is warranted. However, since Gunny has pointed out the policy itself (which I was honestly unaware of despite looking over the policies for something clarifying in this regard) I will move ahead with reducing redundancy if we decide to keep this interpretation. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:41, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the example pages listed and my position is still the same: While the policy is worded a little vague, I believe the spirit is that content should be in the most specific category possible. These child categories should then populate parent categories. The only articles that should be in parent categories should be broad overview type articles that don't fit any of the the more specific child categories, like Fallout 3 weapons. Most of our articles should reside in the lowest category in any tree. The Gunny   01:11, June 11, 2015 (UTC)

Then we have 2 possible courses of action. We either leave the articles the way they are and change our policies to reflect such, or we clean up the categorization system to reduce redundancy and increase the efficiency of our navigational systems. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:44, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

(←)  I have the feeling people are forgetting the importance of the structure of the categories for the Wikia app. Mobile users are more than 60% of our visitors. If you remove all characters from the <game> characters category, you change from a directly visible list into people needing to select a category. Also, you'd change the characters to human characters for the most important (sub)category. In it, are also the mentioned-only characters, which are only minor characters and those characters clutter the list. Right now, the <game> characters is a "clean" list of characters: human, ghoul, robot, animal characters. Talking about the robot and animal characters, they'd be removed from the character category so they'd just be in the <game> robot/creature category (like Vendortron -- FNV characters is already cleared). Think we need a solution for the mentioned-only character problem then, and, if you choose to clear the character list, find an optimal sorting order for the categories in Category:Fallout: New Vegas. We could also gauge of what people would prefer using the Wikia app, a list, or choosing from a subcat. Jspoel 15:14, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

These are very good points, I do not actively use the mobile version of wikia, thus I don't have a great perception of how it looks on the screen, nor how our category systems work for mobile users. Reducing redundancy would have the overall effect of making our categorization system far more efficient, much like a filing system. However, it is possible to induce a system that is too compartmentalized where categories have subcategories and those subcategories have subcategories and etc. This is where we need to be meticulous and find a balance between efficient filing while also making our system functional for users on both desktop and mobile browsers. The best approach to this would be to gauge peoples preference as you've suggested, we could possible open a forum or poll in which we gather the communities, both registered users and anons, opinions on this matter. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:48, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has tried to use the mobile version I can tell you that the category's system is the least of mobile user's worries. I highly doubt that users chose to navigate via categories anyway. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 16:05, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

Also, if they want to see a list of all Fallout characters, we have a page for that, which offers a "a 'clean' list of characters: human, ghoul, robot, animal characters.", which I find to be more effective than the category.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 16:09, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Jasper brings up the most important point: What are the categories used for? Personally, I NEVER use categories to navigate the wiki, unless I'm doing maintenance work using the category as a tool for organizing the work. I very much dislike wikis that force you to navigate them by category, rather than a well designed nav menu, portals and wiki links. I think before we take this any further we need to answer this question: Are the categories here used for maintenance purposes only, or do people really use them to navigate the wiki looking for content? Hey, let's try a poll and see:

If we find that categories are used by readers to find articles, then we need to keep the structure in mind, especially the structure for mobile users. If we find they don't, and only editors use them, then we need to structure them so they are easier to use for that. As a side note: Isn't there some way to structure the cats specially for mobile? The Gunny   18:26, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

In light of the revealed release date, I think it's important that we make an informed decision based on the communities opinion, which Gunny has already taken steps towards by posting a poll here. However, I think it would be more beneficial if we were to post this poll in a blog, as it would reach a wider audience of both editors and readers. I'm also bumping this thread so that others may see it and also put their vote into the poll in the event that a blog based poll is rejected. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:03, June 15, 2015 (UTC)