PathfinderWiki
Log in

Forum:Categories about people inconsistency

From PathfinderWiki
Forums: Grand Lodge > Categories about people inconsistency

I have just noticed an inconsistency in the help pages. I have been using the advice given in Section 2.5 Home Help:Writing an article about a person to categorize people. Here is the text:
Be as specific as possible with this categorization, although this is not always straightforward. These categories are formatted with the name of the location first followed by "/Inhabitants". For example, if you know that a person lives in Sandpoint, use Category:Sandpoint/Inhabitants. There is no need to put the person in Category:Varisia/Inhabitants, unless you could only be as specific as this.

I have just found this help page though: Help:Categories where in 'Basic Guidelines' I find this text:

No matter what category you are putting your article into, a few basic guidelines exist. Always put your article into the most specific category, then also into its parent categories up to an appropriate point. Note that this goes against Wikipedia convention, because we are a more specialized wiki and can provide extra usability for our readers.

For example, consider the article on Belor Hemlock. He is an inhabitant of Sandpoint so he should be in that particular inhabitants category. Because Sandpoint is in Varisia, he is also an inhabitant of Varisia, so he should be in that category too. Varisia is part of the continent of Avistan, but there is no need to add the Belor Hemlock article to Category:Avistan/Inhabitants, because this is such a broad category that is it not useful to browse through. So, we would add:

[[Category:Sandpoint/Inhabitants]]
[[Category:Varisia/Inhabitants]]

I had noticed a lot of this doubling up on parent categories and wondered why, as it was against what the help page and wiki suggest (and it's neater); but this second help page is pretty clear too and explains why pages are categorized as such.

What is the right way please?

Same question but re places: if a building is in Korvosa it goes in Korvosa/Locations obviously. I have just seen that Varisia/Locations has been added too by another author to a Korvosa/Locations building. The help for Places is silent on this one (I think). With Varisia having so many cities Varisia/Locations is going to get very big and unwieldy, in my opinion, if every building in every settlement goes in it. I'd have thought Varisia/Locations was the default for places not able to be classified more closely but if we can classify in more detail do so. Then have the more localized categories connected to Varisia [I will do that now anyway as that should be the case regardless]. Guidance / rationale appreciated and we can then update the help pages so everyone sees the answer.
Personally I always put both specific location and then any parent nation category, while it does lead to the parent nation category getting quite large especially in Varisia's case I think it is good to have all the locations listed together in one single place. At the same time it might be worth creating another category (perhaps only for really popular nations to begin with) for locations that are not affiliated with any particular city. Something along the line of Varisia Wilderness/Locations or something like that. Having said that it would be quite a bit of work to get it all properly categorised.
My guess is that the latter instruction is newer than the former, and therefore should take precedence. Most of the "Help" articles are pretty old and have not been updated in a long time. In addition, inconsistencies, such as the one found by Fleanetha, eventually need to be cleaned up. It would be very helpful if someone could make a note on the help page's talk page about this.
On a related note, Yoda8myhead used to frequently take care of these kind of "meta" questions, but since he now has a full-time job, he's around a lot less. That means it's up to all of us to pitch in a bit more. Without this kind of work on the wiki's "backbone", it runs the risk of slowly collapsing into an incoherent jumble. Thank you, Fleanetha, for bringing attention to these matters.
Let's make a decision and amend accordingly otherwise we'll soldier on with Cheddar bearer following me around adding extra categories to my work for a long while! I have no axe to grind on this and will follow suit - currently that suit seems to favour adding say Sandpoint AND Varisia then with a 2-1 majority in this forum thread. This is what you have done in the past, it seems, and how most pages are categorized. I just wonder whether this way may eventually lead to overloaded, and potentially overwhelming categories though as the wiki grows. Is this worthy of a policy change debate? I'll add a ref to this forum note from both help pages too.
I am sorry about the over zealous categorising, it tends to be something I do when I don't quite feel motivated enough to do a full new article but still want to help out in some way. Like I said (and as you've seen me do way to often, again sorry about that) I tend to categorise to include the parent category as well and personally prefer it that way but I do see your point about it getting too large, the Varisia category is already at 277 articles and rising. I think its important that this big categories include the proper links to all the relevant sub categories, in this respect Varisia is very well organised although it might be worth including all the city sub categories as well that way not only is every article in this one umbrella category but so are all the links to its sub categories. Personally I look at such big category pages as a good way to keep track of how much of the wiki relates to each of the countries and tend to use that to decide which country could maybe use more articles but whether or not that is a good enough reason to use national categories this way is up to everyone else and I can definitely see arguments against it.
Did we ever come to a conclusion on this as to what should be included in regards to category as I am up for going on another category adding spree. Like I said I am up for including nations in almost everything that goes on within their nation but I understand if others disagree. I know there are category trees but that seems to be more an organisation of how the categories relate to each other rather than how individual entries should be dealt with.
Personally, I think it depends on the person. if they present a 'stereotypical' member of thier country, then I think they should be included in the country... but inhabitants of riddleport does not necessarily represent an average inhabitant of Varisia and therefore the individual pages shouldn't be there, but the category riddleport/inhabitants can. that my opinion...
I started doing families with the Blakros family. There are several other families that play roles as a family in the stories of their individual community. (the Vancaskerkin family, and several merchant families) sometimes they contribute as a family, where individual members were not worth a full article... but I'm not sure if they should be categorized the same as a person, or slightly differently...