Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Arctic"

Revision as of 00:24, 24 August 2008

Modernize category names?

The category names/conventions from two years ago should probably be modernized at some point. There's probably a good argument for moving Category:Arctic to Category:Arctic species, et al, to allow broader top-level categories. --FeralKitty 01:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

heh - yep - GMTA I suppose! –xenocidic (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arctic - :Arctic species ?

Do you think it's worthwhile to make a subcat? Will there be vegetation that is confirmed to the arctic, for example, that might also need to be categorized? –xenocidic (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be arctic (and desert) plants, and we'll most likely do categories for them -- we already have an old Category:Water Flower, for example. At the moment, arctic is a sub-category of species, and the plants are sub-categories of Category:Garden Piece. If there were enough arctic articles for a top-level, then it may be worth doing a top-level category, as we've done with/for Species. (Species used to be the category for the Classic species, when there was only one game in existence.)

Navbox-wise, though, we treat the plants as a single collective {{plants}} Navbox and that will probably remain that way at the bottom of their articles. I don't think we're going to break them down by game, as we now do species.

In general, I think I'm trying to stick to the KISS principle, not overcategorize, and mostly just fix things that need reorganizing to support multiple games, instead of trying to fix everything at once.

Since the time we've known about the new games, we've talked about reorganizing things, and a lot of changes that are being made are a result of that long and continuing reorg discussion. There's an old User:FeralKitty/Reorg document that hasn't been updated in ages. It mostly lists what we want to fix, but not what has (exactly) been decided, since then. --FeralKitty 03:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. {{VP2}} will add the article to Category:Trouble in Paradise, which should help us focus on the new stuff once the game hits. {{div}} can be used to more easily do those different tabbing boxes. basically if I start doing stuff that is running counter to how you guys have already planned, just let me know. I'll go over that reorg doc now. could you tweak your sig to include a link to your talk page? also, feel free to reply wherever a conversation starts rather than bouncing back and forth. –xenocidic (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

template - cat - contents

• TIP - Category:Trouble in Paradise - top level stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere i.e. Couch Social and all child cats
  • TIP-species - Category:TIP-species - 2nd level for subcat purposes, could also house every species if we want
    • TIP-species-normal
      • TIP-species-normal-aquatic
      • TIP-species-normal-flying
    • TIP-species-arctic - Category:TIP-species-arctic
    • TIP-species-desert
    • TIP-species-evolved
  • TIP-vegetation - Category:TIP-vegetation
    • TIP-vegetation-flowers
    • TIP-vegetation-bushes
    • TIP-vegetation-trees

stopped there - there will be so many categories... what about instead of breaking it up like that we just include many categories like Aquatic - then we can include plants and species, and they get their own category for terrain, etc? or do you really want categories to be so specific?

so a species could have category:aquatic category:arctic category:tip .... not sure. –xenocidic (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Outline of needs

Let's break the problem down into its components. We have:

• What do we call the templates? (a naming convention topic)
• What are the articles that need to be categorized? (a hierarchy topic)
• What are the categories that the templates will hold? (a namespace/hierarchy topic)

We don't need to solve the naming convention first, so let's set aside the template name for now.

As for the articles, they're mostly categorized already:

1. People can ask to see species by any type or by any game, so we probably have the species adequately categorized, even though the category names might need some tweaking.
2. People can ask to see everything about TiP, so we have that covered.
3. As for asking what's new about TiP, what are you asking?
   1. What species are new? Covered in the Navboxes, for now. Not sure there's a good reason why we'd want to make a category for new TiP species.
   2. What's new about the game? This is pretty much asking to see everything about TiP, since I'm not sure anything that is categorized there isn't new.

What do you think so far? Are we missing any other category queries that we couldn't answer with the existing categories? --FeralKitty (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose not. I'm kinda thinking that broad categories might be best. If someone wants to build an arctic garden, they can pull up category:arctic and see what plants and species can go in that garden. what do you think? likewise for aquatic and desert. –xenocidic (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way people generally approach garden design, and that's the way the types are organized. It wouldn't make sense to do combinations of types.

Do you feel that any articles don't fit into the single top-level TiP category? --FeralKitty (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well at the present time arctic and desert are exclusive to TIP so they belong as subcats but in the future in theory they'd get pulled. are flowers such going to use tabbed browsing as well? –xenocidic (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)