User talk:Iritscen/CategoryTree

"Humor" sounds like too general a name for humorous images. You can make that name more specific and/or allow for a more general Humor category. --geyser 22:54, 10 November 2008 (CET)

Er, I made it "Humor images", is that specific enough? Don't know how else it can be improved, it seems fine that way to me. --iritscen 00:09, 11 November 2008 (CET)

"Humor images" turns the word "humor" into a grammatically improbable qualifier, in which place "fun" would probably be better because it's already been "adjectivated". Apart from "fun images", my suggestion here would be to make a higher-level category called "Humor" used to categorize that kind of images, but also articles which are supposed to make people ROFL. Note that you can't categorize sections (dunno if it's unfortunate or fortunate). --geyser 04:43, 12 November 2008 (CET)

This taps into a much larger issue that I suppose we should be considering first and foremost: how do we handle media (for now, at least, just pictures) on the wiki? I see three options:

1. Separate images at the top level, with their own set of cat.s (as I'm doing now).
2. Have that level 1 cat. for Images, but with no sub-cat.s, and additionally apply cat.s from the other branches to images as seems appropriate.
3. Just file the images into the other categories. This might make it hard to manage images, but I'm not sure we *need* to use cat.s to get handles on images; there are other ways to find files on the wiki, at any rate, so maybe all that matters is that images are cat.d, not separately cat.d.

I could guess which option you might prefer, but I might guess wrong, so I'll just patiently wait for your answer and go from there. --iritscen 18:08, 12 November 2008 (CET)

So, at this point, I'm choosing to stay with answer 1, but I've taken your suggestion and gone with "Fun images". --Iritscen 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't make a definitive statement on any trunk after "Images" as a whole. Just a few casual remarks right now. More, later, maybe. --geyser 22:54, 10 November 2008 (CET)

I wouldn't call "Templates" an "Administrative" category. Also, the categories should be named as explicitly as possible and in "... templates" --geyser 22:54, 10 November 2008 (CET)

Templates are definitely administrative, unless you propose making another level-1 cat. for them, which to me isn't justified. --iritscen 00:09, 11 November 2008 (CET)

Templates are often created by regular editors as a typesetting commodity, not set up by admins with maintenance in mind. They are a basic feature of MediaWiki, and I don't think you should label the whole lot of them as something "administrative". The only "administrative" templates are what you called "administrative templates", really. Maybe you are looking for another name than "Administrative", something like "Wiki-world" (as opposed to Real-world and Oni-world). It may also be that the "Images" subtree actually belongs in that "wiki-space": like "Templates", the root of that hierarchy is redundant of a fundamental built-in functionality of MediaWiki. The three trunks "Real-world", "Oni-world" and "Wiki-world" make sense to me. The last trunk (wiki-world) is perhaps the most clear-cut: a purely utilitary categorization of the wiki's basic resources (e.g., images categorized as resources, regardless of their specific usage in articles; by genre or by author, but not according to what exactly is pictured; additional categorization will come from the "in-universe" tree, mostly). As you noticed, the whole "added value" business blurs the line between "in-universe" and "real-world"; and modding also deals with "in-universe" entities and interpretations. I have no clear suggestion at this point, but it seems hard, if not futile, to keep branches of "in-universe" from contaminating other trunks. --geyser 04:43, 12 November 2008 (CET)

Sorry, don't like "Wiki-world", but what about "Wiki maintenance" or "Wiki support"? And yes, perhaps "Images" should go under that, I am not decided yet, but the idea is not a bad one. --iritscen 18:08, 12 November 2008 (CET)

More importantly, you are questioning the overall approach to the level 1 cat.s. Leaving "Images" aside for now, we're looking the other four main cat.s. Your point that modding is partly in-universe, and that added value is also tied up in the Oni-verse leads me to this suggestion: rather than making Modding a level 1 cat., how about these cat.s at level 1: Oni-verse, Wiki support, and Beyond Oni-verse. This last cat. would have as a sub-cat the Modding branch, articles about Oni as a game, as well as Added value, as well as Oni 2's whole namespace. Whatcha think? --iritscen 18:08, 12 November 2008 (CET)

I would rather keep modding in its own category. "Wiki-world", "Modding Oni", "Inside Oni", and "Beyond Oni". Or something of the sort. Gumby 19:51, 12 November 2008 (CET)

Trying something new; since it's just too hard to fit so many topics into just five level 1 cat.s, counting Images, so I made seven :-3 : Real World, Inside Oni, Beyond Oni (for added value and Oni 2 stuff), Oni Support (for things like "Installation"), Oni Modding, Wiki Support, and Images. There's nothing wrong with seven level 1 categories, and I can't find any way to squeeze one more kind of article together without it being unnatural.

I would have other remarks, e.g., about "Added value" or "AE" vs "Modding projects", but that'd be more or less subjective and polemical. Later. --geyser 22:54, 10 November 2008 (CET)

I'm not that confident about where I placed "Added value". And "AE" should probably be under "Current modding projects"; trying it under there for now to see how it looks; note that only pages directly related to your AE work would be there, none of that "all modding belongs to the AE" nonsense. :-3 --iritscen 00:09, 11 November 2008 (CET)

"all modding belongs to the AE" is not nonsense, it's just that Oni is not mod-friendly, so mods will inevitably interfere unless they're part of a single framework. And "my" AE work is nil, so go ahead and delete the whole namespace while you're at it ^_^ - seriously, AE will be a gathering or it will not be. If you don't like "AE", we can change the namespace to "Mods", but it wouldn't change the fact of the matter: think of it as a standard in organization and quality without which a mod just isn't viable (according to ME, of course, according to ME; I've been wrong before; but, I'll say it again, Oni is fundamentally not mod-friendly -_-). --geyser 04:43, 12 November 2008 (CET)

I think your last point is pointless, I don't care how hard Oni is to mod; I see a very clear distinction between "your" work (read: the specific package you release that is called the Edition) and any mods that may use that framework. --iritscen 18:08, 12 November 2008 (CET)

The current evolution of the AE, as it becomes modular, is bearing me out here, as there are simply mods that are AE, and mods that aren't AE. This ties in with what you have told me elsewhere, that you want the AE to include only selected mods that can be screened for compatibility with the other AE mods. So if we follow this path, the distinction will always be clear. --Iritscen 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)