Forum:Categories and redundancy vote

	This forum page has been archived.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

Hey everyone, Jasper here. I recently posted a discussion forum about how we should handle our category system and it is now time to take it to vote. To refresh your memories here are the two options.

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).

Vote

Please vote yes on the system you agree with the most.

Poll finished on 7:18 pm June 25, 2015 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

System 1

Yes

See my comment on the forum about this. It's not convenient for the mobile (Wikia app), where it is of much importance to have a fast and clean list, right away, without browsing. Human characters category gets cluttered with mentioned-only characters. Jspoel 19:39, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

System 2

Yes

1. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:18, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
2.  The Gunny   19:19, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
3. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 19:20, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
4. pls make it happen ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 19:21, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
5. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 19:21, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
6. It always boils down to wording. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:26, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
7. This system is more precise and makes categories less bulkier. If not that, isn't it more professional? ☢ Energy X ☣ 19:29, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
8. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 19:39, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
9. I find it easier to locate a page through specific category trees. _{Don't give up the ship!} 20:01, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
10. ---bleep196- (talk) 02:02, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
11.  A Follower  Talk  04:49, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
12. --Kingclyde (talk) 08:15, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The obvious solution to the problem J outlines above is that mentioned-only characters should be in their own category. That way they won't "clog up" the non-mentioned-only humans category. The Gunny   19:50, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Having done some work in the category trees this was the method I used.  A Follower  Talk  04:51, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I'm wondering which one is easiest to fix with a bot. Because the old games use a different categorization than FO3 and FNV, so no matter what we choose, we'll have a lot and really a lot of category work that will have to be done. As we all have other work to focus on right now with FOS and FO4 inbound, my preference goes to the option that can be executed without anyone having to waste time on it. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 19:44, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

I would rather we take the most appropriate route, regardless of effort needed, than choose a method simply because it's easier. That being said, we've discussed whether this could be done with bots. Short answer: yes, but with a lot of oversight. Some articles really should be in a parent category, e.g. Fallout 3 weapons should be in Category:Fallout 3 weapons, which is a parent category for the weapons by skill categories. Just running a bot over these pages could result in articles having their cats changed that don't need it. Using AWB, we'd have to build the list off of existing cats, but then very carefully vet the pages before hitting the "go, bot, go" button. The Gunny   20:03, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

There are many users who will happily do the leg work for this. We don't need to make our policies in mind of what bots can do. I am more than capable of removing categories from/adding categories to pages, as are nearly all our users. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 22:08, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the options, so it's not like i would pick an inapropriate way over the other just based on laziness. But if 2 options are valued equally, i prefer picking the easiest one. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 02:08, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Result

The result seems clear. The second option passes with a vast majority. The Gunny   01:11, June 26, 2015 (UTC)