| abstract | - The categorization of blasters is in dispute. Let's make an executive decision here. Should we have the bare minimum of categorization (ex: EE-3 carbine categorized under [[Category:Blaster carbines]]) or keep the categorization as it is (ex: EE-3 carbine categorized under [[Category:Blaster weapons]][[Category:Blaster carbines]][[Category:Blaster rifles]]). --Ryluk Shouja(Bouny Hunters Guild)10:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* I'll go with the bare minimum solution. The latter is pointless because [[Category:Blaster carbines]] is a subcategory within [[Category:Blaster rifles]]. [[Category:Blaster rifles]] in turn is a subcategory within [[Category:Blaster weapons]]. So by categorizing a blaster carbine as [[Category:Blaster cabines]] automatically also categorizes it as [[Category:Blaster rifles]] and [[Category:Blaster weapons]]. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have subcategories at all. Of course multiple categories whould be allowed provided that they are not subcategories within each other. This was categorizing a bowcaster as [[Category:Bows]], [[Category:Cultural weapons]] and [[Category:Blaster weapons]] would be okay. Besides this categorization problem is not just a matter of blaster weapons but of most other types of weapons. I hope my long argument makes sense. KEJ 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* I agree. It makes is much easier to navigate the categories. The problem with the extensive categorization is that if we put every article that could fit into that category into the broad category as well as its narrow subcategory, the first page overflows into the second page. Even this isn't such a problem, except that the letters take their subcategories with them. For example, if you had [[Category:Category X]] with articels with the letteres A, B, C, and D, if there are 400 articles total, letters C and D will be on the next page. Now, if there are the subcategories [[Category:C]] and [[Category:D]], subcategories C and D will be pushed over to the next page, and that is very, very confusing for users. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* Bare minimum. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) File:Imperial Emblem.svg 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* Ryluk, that's what {{subcat}} is for. Havac 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
* Sounds good to me. I'll keep that in mind in my work on recategorization. Now should this be for all articles, or just the blasters? --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
* Quick question: are blades edged weapons or pointed weapons? They fit into both. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)10:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
* It would be my guess that edged is for swords and knives and pointed for spears. Havac 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
* That's what I thought, although technically they have both edges and points. I'm up for just putting them in edged though. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)10:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
* I think we should put a weapon in a subcategory depending on what a person is looking for when they go to that category. This would go with what was said above with the spears and swords thing. Spears=pointed & Swords = edged unless it is a sword made for straight jabs.--ShadowTrooper 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
* I don't follow all the Category speak. All I know is that when I recently tried to find a baster weapon, not having used the categories for any searching since it was changed, I was extremely pleased with the number of sub-categories, enabling me to narrow my search tremendously (even though the weapon wasn't where it was supposed to be, which is besides the point). I wish the Force Organizations were organized like that. I say sub-categories all the way! Meshing a lot of stuff togheter is the bane of orderliness and ease of searcing. And with the search funtion being less than helpful a lot of the time, that is a must. DarthMRN 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
* I'm not saying get rid of the categories, just narrow the categorization. For example, if you are a new user and are looking for a Sporting blaster pistol, you head to [[Category:Weapons]], and in that, [[Category:Blaster weapons]], and in that, [[Category:Blaster pistols]], and in that, [[Category:Sporting blaster pistols]] instead of having the Sporting blaster pistols in every category along the way (like having it in [[Category:Weapons]] and [[Category:Blaster weapons]] and [[Category:Blaster pistols]] and on top of that, [[Category:Personal weapons]]). It's much more organized that way.And ShadowTrooper, I'm ecstatic that you're enthusiastic about helping the categorization, but while you're looking through the categories and you see a weapon that fits into a subcategory of the main category, please don't move the whole thing to the [[Category:Other weapons]] category, just take off the extra category. It makes it much easier and a lot faster than having to go back and recategorize everything from the start. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
* Just remember, no redundant categorization. You may be interested in reading this too, if you haven't already - Forum:CT Archive/Weapon categorization revamp. 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
* It should be noted that the result of that CT is inconsistent with the layout guide. jSarek 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
