Talk:RayWiki: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

==Category tree==

Is there any particular reason why RayWiki's category system is so different from those of other wikis such as Wikipedia? Here it is common to see pages categorised within large categories and simultaneously categorised within subcategories of the large categories. For example, Moskito is a member of the 'Bosses', 'Bosses from Rayman 1', 'Enemies' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1' categories – why is this necessary? The fact that Moskito is categorised under 'Bosses from Rayman 1' indicates that he is also a member of the other three categories; even if the other three were removed from the Moskito article, he would still be a member of them, because 'Bosses from Rayman 1' is a subcategory of both 'Bosses' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1', which is itself a subcategory of 'Enemies'. I suggest that we remove all superfluous categorisations from our articles and adopt the much more efficient categorisation system employed by Wikipedia. If anyone has found my descriptions confusing, here are illustrations of [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Depth-first-tree.png Wikipedia's system] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Directed_graph_with_back_edge.svg our current one]. Thoughts? —[[User:Spiraldoor|Spiraldoor]] [[File:IconSpiralDoor.png|link=User:Spiraldoor]] 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:While it would definitely be a great idea to have a clean categorisation tree, I'm afraid that the upper level categories will not appear at the bottom of the page even if the article is classified under one of their subcategories, and that the said articles will not appear in those categories' pages either. It's a question of legibility vs optimisation. —[[File:RRRGBAIcon8.png|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon0.gif|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon1.png|link=User:Hunchman801]] 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Category tree==
 Is there any particular reason why RayWiki's category system is so different from those of other wikis such as Wikipedia? Here it is common to see pages categorised within large categories and simultaneously categorised within subcategories of the large categories. For example, Moskito is a member of the 'Bosses', 'Bosses from Rayman 1', 'Enemies' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1' categories – why is this necessary? The fact that Moskito is categorised under 'Bosses from Rayman 1' indicates that he is also a member of the other three categories; even if the other three were removed from the Moskito article, he would still be a member of them, because 'Bosses from Rayman 1' is a subcategory of both 'Bosses' and 'Enemies from Rayman 1', which is itself a subcategory of 'Enemies'. I suggest that we remove all superfluous categorisations from our articles and adopt the much more efficient categorisation system employed by Wikipedia. If anyone has found my descriptions confusing, here are illustrations of [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Depth-first-tree.png Wikipedia's system] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Directed_graph_with_back_edge.svg our current one]. Thoughts? —[[User:Spiraldoor|Spiraldoor]] [[File:IconSpiralDoor.png|link=User:Spiraldoor]] 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
+:While it would definitely be a great idea to have a clean categorisation tree, I'm afraid that the upper level categories will not appear at the bottom of the page even if the article is classified under one of their subcategories, and that the said articles will not appear in those categories' pages either. It's a question of legibility vs optimisation. —[[File:RRRGBAIcon8.png|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon0.gif|link=User:Hunchman801]][[File:RRRGBAIcon1.png|link=User:Hunchman801]] 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)