Help talk:Categories: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(pseudoscience) |
(More on pseudoscience) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:A quick google seems to emphasise the presentation of something unscientific as scientific. It's not the ''only'' definition, but it's useful for our purposes (and closest to what was in my mind, for whatever it's worth), so perhaps we could go with that? | :A quick google seems to emphasise the presentation of something unscientific as scientific. It's not the ''only'' definition, but it's useful for our purposes (and closest to what was in my mind, for whatever it's worth), so perhaps we could go with that? | ||
:You're absolutely right that there's a lot of overlap with other categories, and quite a bit of overlap between categories in general, so I was thinking maybe a [http://xkcd.com/747/ Venn-diagram] type approach, rather than a hierarchical one, would be easiest to implement. Then we have more flexibility, and won't run into trouble if something clearly belongs to one category, but not the parent category.<br>What do you think, is there a better solution I'm missing? is pseudoscience a redundant category?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | :You're absolutely right that there's a lot of overlap with other categories, and quite a bit of overlap between categories in general, so I was thinking maybe a [http://xkcd.com/747/ Venn-diagram] type approach, rather than a hierarchical one, would be easiest to implement. Then we have more flexibility, and won't run into trouble if something clearly belongs to one category, but not the parent category.<br>What do you think, is there a better solution I'm missing? is pseudoscience a redundant category?<br>--[[User:Teleuteskitty|Teleuteskitty]] ([[User talk:Teleuteskitty|talk]]) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
::I think the hierarchical layout of categories still makes sense, but that's only because that's how I know to categorize pages in MediaWiki: categories can contain pages and other categories, and so on. "Pseudoscience" can encompass everything in Alternative Medicine, Paranormal and New Age (as a parent category) and still contain its own pages for other things. Can you think of an example for something that belongs to a category but wouldn't be considered pseudoscience? Or, we could just use pseudoscience as more of a catch-all, as it seems to be used on the Rogues Gallery, but without making it a top-level category. | |||
::The other thing I'm mulling over: what's a more descriptive term for the last 5 categories than just "Other".<br>-- [[User:Av8rmike|Av8rmike]] ([[User talk:Av8rmike|talk]]) 14:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:18, 7 June 2012
I was a little confused when trying to add categories to other pages-- how is "pseudoscience" as a category defined? Should it be more like a top-level or "meta" category? Because a lot of the other sub-categories also can be described under pseudoscience.
-- Av8rmike (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm unsure of where the limits on this are too, and it's not entirely clear from the Rogues Gallery either. I haven't included definitions on the category pages, but I think they would be valuable in the long run. If anyone would like to add some, please go ahead - I just haven't been brave enough yet :)
- A quick google seems to emphasise the presentation of something unscientific as scientific. It's not the only definition, but it's useful for our purposes (and closest to what was in my mind, for whatever it's worth), so perhaps we could go with that?
- You're absolutely right that there's a lot of overlap with other categories, and quite a bit of overlap between categories in general, so I was thinking maybe a Venn-diagram type approach, rather than a hierarchical one, would be easiest to implement. Then we have more flexibility, and won't run into trouble if something clearly belongs to one category, but not the parent category.
What do you think, is there a better solution I'm missing? is pseudoscience a redundant category?
--Teleuteskitty (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)- I think the hierarchical layout of categories still makes sense, but that's only because that's how I know to categorize pages in MediaWiki: categories can contain pages and other categories, and so on. "Pseudoscience" can encompass everything in Alternative Medicine, Paranormal and New Age (as a parent category) and still contain its own pages for other things. Can you think of an example for something that belongs to a category but wouldn't be considered pseudoscience? Or, we could just use pseudoscience as more of a catch-all, as it seems to be used on the Rogues Gallery, but without making it a top-level category.
- The other thing I'm mulling over: what's a more descriptive term for the last 5 categories than just "Other".
-- Av8rmike (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)