<span class="SFPTagline">
From SCIFIPEDIA
</span>
Overview
As we're doing some major overhaul to the article naming conventions and organization, it seemed like it was appropriate to get a consensus on the style as we proceed, to limit working at cross-purposes.
First, we have switched from using Title Case (like you would see in a traditional paper encyclopedia: every significant word capitalized) to Sentence case (just the first word capitalized). That's fairly straight forward (a Mad scientists article rather than a Mad Scientists article). The place where this can create an issue is when something is seen as a phrase. For example, would you call the category (were it to exist) Vice presidents or Vice Presidents? My tendency has been to capitalize the name of a century (20th Century) as opposed to simply making it an ordinal in a list (20th century), but I suspect we'll end up with the latter. :) In fact, with no objections, I'll make the change to the ordinal style (with century not capitalized). This seems more consistent with the general move to Sentence case.
Secondly, there is the issue of the structure of the names. There has been a spirited discussion on the parallel for characters (:Characters category discussion) We started out using the minimum number of words (Vampire movies, 18th century movies). However, when we changed to "Actors from zzcountry" instead of ZZCountry actors", it seemed reasonable to adopt a similar strategy. Thus, Vampire movies becomes Movies featuring vampires. This is more explicit (it states that the topic is shown in the movie, not a factor of the movie's creation or existence).
This is one of those places where browsers and concentrators may find different things appealing. When a user looked under the vampires category, it would be easiest to see "Movies featuring vampires", "Novels featuring vampires", "TV series featuring vampires", and so on. However, someone browsing under Movies by theme might find it disconcerting to see that all of them started with (the seemingly unnecssary) "Movies featuring...". Helpful in one place, adding to the noise in another.
I personally like the "Movies featuring ZZ" myself. If all of the themes start with that, I've got no problem finding the one I want, and it seems classier. :) However, that is less intuitive for new people categorizing.
What do you think?
--bufocalvin 11:39, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Variations in categories
Re: However, someone browsing under Movies by theme might find it disconcerting to see that all of them started with (the seemingly unnecessary) "Movies featuring...". Helpful in one place, adding to the noise in another.
Is it possible, perhaps using up-bars, to have the category display as "Movies featuring wombats" in most places, but in a particular area, such as "Movies by theme," have the category display as "Wombats—movies"? It's definitely more fiddling, but templates help us fiddle so much better!
—Candy
Re:Variation in categories
Interesting question: I think the pipes (|) just change how the items sort, not how they display.
Is there a way to change the display in a category?
--bufocalvin 00:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
re: Movies featuring....
As much as I understood where you were going this one and really had no objection to it, I was a little ambivalent about the change for the same reasons you've stated Bufo. "Movies featuring" isn't as obvious as "vampire movies" and yet for some reason, "novels featuring vampires" makes perfect sense.
I don't know of a way to change what the category displays as, I certainly hope there is one though, that would solve some problems. If that isn't an option, another possibility to consider is "vampires in movies", vampires in novels", "vampires in television" etc. It solves the problem of themes and movies by putting the subject matter first without making the subject seem the dominant feature of the medium.
--MarshAngel 08:17, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Theme in Medium
Thanks for sharing your opinion! It's interesting, for me I don't have a different feel for "Novels featuring vampires" and "Movies featuring vampires". I think that something like "Vampires in movies" makes sense for an article title. That would also make sense to me for a category including, say, Count Orlok, the vampire in Nosferatu. When categorizing the movie itself, though, it doesn't seem to fit. The movie isn't a vampire in the movies, it's a movie featuring a vampire. :)
I think there may also be a difference in the connotation of "featuring". I don't think of "featuring" as the same as "starring" or "focussing on". For example, the Tony Award for a Featured Actor specifically recognizes performances in a non-starring role. That doesn't mean that Nosferatu doesn't "feature" a vampire just becauses it focusses on one. I think that everything that "stars" is featured, but not everything that is featured "stars".
Here is what I would propose: there would be a category in Themes called Vampires. There would also be the category Movies. There would be a category called "Movies featuring vampires", which would appear in both the Vampires category (actually under "Related topics for vampires" and in Movies (under Movies by theme, which is under More search options for movies).
When you looked at the Related topics for vampires category, you would see: Games featuring vampires, Movies featuring vampires, Novels featuring vampires, and so on. That makes sense to me.
When you looked at Movies by theme, you'd see: Movies featuring aliens, movies featuring time travel, Movies featuring vampires, and so on. I can see the desire to have the theme first: it's easier on the eye. However, I do like Movies featuring aliens better than Aliens in movies in the movies by theme, again because I would expect to find the aliens rather than the movies when I clicked on it if it said Aliens in the movies. If all of the subcategories start with "Movies featuring", than the alphabetization is inherent. I admit that it isn't the natural language people use: people say somethinng is a "great vampire movie", not a "great movie featuring vampires". My ideal solution to that is to have articles on all the themes, like Vampires in movies (with a redirect from Vampire movies). That could initially be accomplished with stubs, and then they would eventually expand into more comprehensive articles, like the articles we have now on Vampires in movies and Vampires in fiction. That works for me, but may be overly ambitious.
As to Count Orlok, we're back to how to name the character categories. :) Whether it is Characters who are vampires, Vampire characters, or simply Vampires, it would appear under Characters by theme and under Vampires.
I'm getting to where I'm itching to be doing these changes, so I'm looking forward to reaching a consensus. In the Novels category, for example, the only subcategory under More search options for novels that is still in Title Case is Novels by Theme. I'd rather restructure the theme categories at the same time I eliminate the Title Case than do it in two waves, but that's just me. :)
--bufocalvin 12:18, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
In that case...
Is there an issue?
Here is what I would propose: there would be a category in Themes called Vampires. There would also be the category Movies. There would be a category called "Movies featuring vampires", which would appear in both the Vampires category (actually under "Related topics for vampires" and in Movies (under Movies by theme, which is under More search options for movies).
When you looked at the Related topics for vampires category, you would see: Games featuring vampires, Movies featuring vampires, Novels featuring vampires, and so on. That makes sense to me.
I don't really see the difference between what you're suggesting and what you've already implemented.
--MarshAngel 13:50, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
1. Category entries
I think we've been getting bogged down with our connector words. We're probably not all going to be happy with sticking to just one, because sometimes "in" will sound right, and sometimes "with" will sound right, and sometimes "featuring" will sound right, and so on, depending on taste. There's no right or wrong.
Do you have thoughts about the possibility of making an end-run around choosing appropriate connector words and using dashes instead?
[[Category:Vampires—movies]]
Using two hyphens in place of a dash doesn't look quite as professional but would definitely be easier for new people to copy.
[[Category:Movies--vampires]]
2. Amount of categorization
I would like to see the number of categories attached to any particular entry to be limited in number. Here's why I think so. When I see a big category box like the one at the bottom of Vampires: Los Muertos, it is too much for me visually. There are too many items for me to sort through, especially since wiki code doesn't let us prioritize them or bullet-point them or anything.
There are four categories at the bottom of Star Trek, and that is much more inviting to me.
We could conceivably have dozens of categories attached to Star Trek, but using the series footer template instead does a great job of providing the reference links but in a more organized way than the wiki's natural categorization.
I'd like to see us keep the number of links on an entry to seven or fewer. I can enjoy looking at that number of category links and think about exploring them without feeling overwhelmed by them.
This might mean creating additional footer templates to help guide us in finding related links. Star Trek has rows called "series," "films," and "universe." For movies, we might have "creators and cast," "settings," and "themes." And other possibilities!
Everyone has so far contributed vastly to making SCIFIpedia easy and fun to browse and search in. What do you think about this proposal? It's more work, I know that. Do you think the results would be worth it?
- —Candy
Vision and Reality
You're right, MA! :) I'd started to set it up the way that was intuitive to me, but I didn't want to continue doing it if people didn't like it or had a better way. The idea of the article for each theme was new, though. :)
--bufocalvin 18:15, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Limiting Category
I have to admit, Candy, I'm not a visual person. If someone brings me a lovely Excel graph, I usually just ask for the numbers. :) I don't notice clutter very much, so I appreciate you pointing that out. I wouldn't want to reduce the actual number of categories, but certainly there could be another level of hierarchy. I'd have think about that a bit. Clearly, if there was something like Star Trek actors for each series, you wouldn't need to display each individual actor under the series article.
MA, I think you might know...is there a way to put something into a category and then not display the category at the bottom of that article? It seems to me you've done something like that with the templates. I think that would often work for me. :)
That would resolve the issue in a movie. If we look at say, Star Wars, I do want to categorize it under Mark Hamill movies, James Earl Jones movies, and so on. However, I don't really care about those showing up at the bottom of that article. I'm fine with a user clicking on Mark Hamill in the cast listings, and then being able to go to a category for Mark Hamill at the bottom of the Mark Hamill article, and seeing a Mark Hamill movies category there.
--bufocalvin 18:15, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
re quantity
I agree about limiting categories. I took a look at some of the category listings at the bottom of the short story anthologies articles and I just zoned out. It's too much for the eyes and everything seems to run into each other. Visuals and readability are important to me.
I think footers may be the way to go. It is definitely more work but it's doable. I don't think this need apply to all movies though. I think it works for series with multiple installments, large franchises, and popular authors. For the rest, every detail should be in the article itself and we can make greater use of "related articles" as a subsection. I think having a cast listing should be enough; the same with anthologies.
Regarding the template issue, it works completely opposite to what you're thinking Bufo. when you add the <noinclude> </noinclude> to the template category, it excludes the article you're listing from being included in the same category as the template itself. I did not include that bit of code in Template:Cleanup so that each article tagged with it is automatically included in the Cleanup Tasks category. Technically it adds a category as opposed to removing one, so it doesn't work for our purposes
I'm far far from an expert on wiki code but something tells me that the only solution to not having a category appear, is to not include it at all. I suspect this is, in part, the reason why Wikipedia uses lists so much. It is far easier to keep categories definitive, specific, and hierarchal. General categories result in overlong lists that apply to too many unrelated articles....as it seems we've discovered.
--MarshAngel
Hiding Categories
That's too bad! I'm going to research that, because it seems like that having the categories not display in the article itself would be the most elegant solution, and the best compromise. I love seeing a category with hundreds of articles! Especially with the alphabetical navbars that we have in things like themes. I don't mind seeing lots of categories at the bottom, but I know I'm probably in the minority on that.
=If= we can hide the category display in the articles, and just have the prime category show (movies for movies, novels for novels, and so on) that would work well. For the connections to the article, I think there would be three main options: the in-line internal links; the "Related Terms and Articles" that we've been using; and footers. I like the look of the footers that MA has done very much. However, I think they might be overkill in quite a few cases (like a One Season Wonder).
Also, I'm still sad about not having articles about characters in the characters category. Literally every day since I "discovered" that all of those articles were no longer categorized that way, I've thought about them not being there. I think that a lot of people are browsers. All characters are related by being characters, just like all movies are related by being movies. I have books like that, and I do sometimes read them sequentially, and sometimes jump around. it immediately shows the richness of the site. Successful software appeals to be with multiple working styles, and I think that's true here as well. I want to appeal to browsers (with huge lists of categories) and concentrators.
Let me look at hiding the categories in the article: I have a couple of ideas about how it might be done.
--bufocalvin 20:34, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
HIDDENCAT
Scifipedia is written in MediaWiki, right? Apparently, there is supposed to be a way to make it work. However, that might have been turned off in the user preferences. If you put __HIDDENCAT__ on a category page, it is supposed to suppress the appearance of that category on the article pages. So, I think if the Scott Bakula page had a Related Terms and Article link that took the user to the Scott Bakula TV series category, you would see the items in that category, like Star Trek: Enterprise and Quantum Leap. However, you wouldn't see Scott Bakula TV series as a category listing on the pages for those shows. This seems like a potentially valuable tool for us.
Candy, is it possible to find out if that setting is set to off for Scifipedia, and if it is, if it could be changed?
Thanks!
--bufocalvin 21:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
HIDDENCAT
This looks like a very new function being implemented in Wikipedia. I tested to make sure, and it's not a function in SCIFIpedia. I don't want to say we will never get more functionality, but right now I'm focusing on getting repairs for the problems created by the database upgrade several weeks ago.
Bufo, I don't know if this suggestion will make you feel better or if I haven't grasped the issue about not having articles about characters in the characters category. But what about adding a lot more guidance to the text of the
[[Category:Characters]] entry? Explain where the character articles can be found and provide some examples. Would that help people who browse?
—Candy
Thanks!
I had tried testing, too, and it didn't work for me, either. When I did __NOTOC__, the "magic word" (which seems to be the actual terminology) did not appear in the preview, as I would expect. However, __HIDDENCAT__ does, which indicates to me that it is not recognizing it as code. Also, it said it there should be a setting in User Preferences to reveal the hidden categories, and I don't see one, so as you suggest, it may not be available in Scifipedia. I do understand that the changes from the database upgrade are a higher priority.
Here's the info on it: webpage.
Sure, having an explanation in a prime category without articles like Characters would be helpful. If the characters aren't altogether, though, you can't browse through characters. The user still needs to make a decision about what characters they want to see, or at least by what parameter the user wants to narrow the search. It's sort of like looking at an almanac (guided content) versus looking at an encyclopedia. I like them both. The way we've been setting up the categories (More search options for and Related topics for), we allow for up to 200 search categories, which can also have their own search categories).
Take a look at the novels category. I'm pretty happy with that set up. :) It has the two subcategories, and they've been put in sentence case. I still need to eliminate the parallel category Novels by Theme (which parallels the Sentence case version, Novels by theme). As you dig deeper into the subcategories, there are still wants that need to be converted, but it gives you a pretty good idea. Would it look better if there were no articles on individual novels in the novel category? I like having the options of alphabetical browsing or themetically linked subcategories. I know not everything has to be done that way, but it seems to me like the novels category and the characters category could reasonably have the same structure.
Oh, speaking of different categories being done differently, this struck me ysterday (and I know it might belong better in the Characters discussion). The default in Characters is fictional ones, so it could be okay to just say Martial Artists rather than Fictional Martial Artists or Martial Artist Characters or Characters -- Martial Artists or Characters who are martial artists. We do have actors who are real martial artists, and maybe that's a good name for that category: Real martial artists. With authors, the opposite would be true: we most write about real authors. So, the modifier would go under the character listing, and not in the Authors listing. Under characters, it would say Fictional authors, or Characters -- Authors, or...
--bufocalvin 15:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Novels category
I admit I'm fond of seeing articles on individual novels in the novel category. I like it because it gives me a preview of what I can expect to find in the category. The titles tempt me to browse.
I would be fine with parallel development of the characters category.
I am also comfortable with our making the assumption that characters are fictional, and dropping the qualifiers for them, while adding qualifiers for people who really are shoemakers or who really possess special abilities.
Anybody else want to add their thoughts?
- —Candy
- scifiadmin1
2008, SCI FI. All rights reserved.
