<span class="SFPTagline">
From SCIFIPEDIA
</span>
This is the discussion of the categorization of articles. You can add your idea on this page and then tell us why on the discussion page. Below is the beginnings of the possible structure of categories on SCIFIPEDIA with the opinions of this topics originator.
Categories for people
I may have had an account here for a while, but I am still relatively new to this wiki. I was looking around and became horrified by the sheer amount of categories, especially those for people. Since this wiki is specifically geared for people within certain genres, I would say that there would need to be very few categories for people. Unless a person is significant, that person should not have a category. I have seen people with more than one category and cringed.
Top categories for people
This is not an all inclusive list.
Now, you may ask, what do we do when those categories get too large?
Subcategories for people
By profession (motion picture media)
First, let's divide them by media (this is for motion picture media). There are a lot of people who go back and forth between the media types; so the person may get both, but only if the person spends nearly the same amount of time in both. If a person is mostly in television, then the film category would not be applied to that person.
This is not an all inclusive list.
Nationality
Now, we could divide them by nationality. This is not an all inclusive list.
Setting
Some settings are large enough to merit their own categories. A setting which includes three or more items might get its own category of categories. The subcategories should not be created unless there are at least three people to go into them. The following categories are not the only ones that could be created. If articles are done on all of the stunt coordinaters of a setting and there are more than three of them, then create the Stunt coordinators category. One the other side, if a setting only has had one director for the entire run, the directors category would not be created. The one director would go in the People category.
Notes
The above is just a small sample of the possible categories that could be created to handle a vast amount of people.
The actors categories include voice actors for the various animated series out there based on live action series and the reverse.
In closing categories for people
There are very few people in motion pictures that I can think of that deserve their own categories. Douglas Adams and Stephen King are probably the most notable for their cross media works. Most authors should get their own categories if there are enough articles on their books. A category just to have an actor's filmograhphy is a bit much.
Response
Quite a bit of this has already been done. One reason you haven't been finding them is that the convention at Scifipedia has been to do a category name in title case. Thus, we say The X-Files Directors, rather than Category:The X-Files directors. Another major change we've made from what you are suggesting is to combine all the subcategories into a couple of subcategories. The problem becomes (and this is inherent in the Wiki software) that subcategories will spill on to subsequent pages after the alpha group for the first 200. In other words, if you have a category called X-Men Producers directly under Producers, and you have more than 200 Producers, people can't see that subcategory without moving to the next page.
The answer we have been doing (which seems to work well) is to have a category called More Search Options for Actors (for example). Within that, there are lots of options, including Actors by Country (similar to your nationality category...we had that discussion), Actors by Role, and so on. We've done it in quite a few places, and are working on the rest.
We use setting in a different way than you propose: our use of setting is the literal sense of setting, like country or century. We do have Actors by Series, as an example.
Now, what you say "horrified" you and caused you to "cringe" is part of what pleases me the most about Scifipedia. :) It all has to do with database design, and with inclusiveness. We do need to complete hiding some of the inner workers: we are working on that. Quite a bit of our categorization is automated. For example, when somebody enters a movie, I use code to create categories for all the actors, the director, and so on. I like that. I am a person who prefers to limit subjectiveness in this process. While you may think that Stephen King deserves a category and (for example) James Blish doesn't, another person might disagree. I'm for inclusiveness: I'd love to eventually have everything in Scifipedia, not just what somebody thought was "significant". I've always thought of Sci Fi and Sci Fi fans (or fen, if you prefer) as inclusive folks...if there's a Darkwing Duck wiki out there, great. I'm sure there is, just like there is probably something devoted to Turkish Sci Fi movies, or 1930s novels.
Also, in my opinion, people should be in more than one category. The categories are just pointers, they don't take up a lot of memory. If I go to look for John Sayles, for example, I might look for him in either Directors or in Screenwriters. If I think of him as a director and he's only filed only screenwriters, I think many people would assume we do not have an article on him.
We've also recently discussed dropping the TV Characters category as a separate category. With all of the synergy out there, I'm personally not feeling like the medium makes that much of a difference to me. The ThunderCats characters are currently TV characters, but there is a movie in the works. If people want to have medium based categories, that's fine with me, but I probably wouldn't work personally on them.
So, bottom line: I think there may already be organization here then you've noticed. I would not set a limit for the number of items to have a category. That also requires some real meta knowledge of the database, which slows down data entry. When I created an article for an actor, how would I know that it was the third actor from, say, Ireland? If I just create a category for Irish Actors when I create the first article, I don't have to worry about it or look anywhere else to determine the need.
Those are my initial thoughts. :) Ideally, we all come to agreement on conventions so we don't work at cross-purposes. I'm looking forward to your response to this. Not tonight, necessarily: it's midnight where I am, and I'm just getting off work. :)
Let me suggest that you take a look at More Search Options for Actors and Filmmakers to get some sense of the extensive work that's already been done. I'm not adverse to new systems, but I would need to be convinced that they are better and worth the effort. :) Oh, one last thing: why pick three as the threshhold? Why not two or four? Just curious...
I really appreciate that you brought up this discussion, and I hope it continues so we can all be happy with what's here going forward.
--Bufocalvin 03:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Response from Aleena
Regarding title case
Since I come from editing Wikipedia where title case is not used in category or acticle names, I am extremely biased against it on any wiki. Also, for ease in typing a category name, it is slightly easier to type a mostly lowercase name than a name with a lot of mixed capitalization.
Regarding subcategories going to the next page
There is a simple work around for that. See below.
[[:Category:Example subcategory| Example subcategory]]
See the space after the pipe? That space will put the subcategory on the first page of the category.
Regarding settings
I can see what you are saying. The reason I use the word setting here is to show that series may not always be accurate, I think. Then again, why would a once off film or book have its own category? I can handle Actors by series.
Regarding name categories
Okay, not every person who is involved with speculative fiction needs a category. Everything that would be in a person's category should already be listed in that person's article in the Filmography or Bibliography sections of the article. Let's use an article I recently edited, Gabrielle Union. She does not need an entire category just for her work. Here are the categories she should be in: Category:Actors from the United States, Category:1972 Births, and Category:The Night Stalker actors. All of her other appearances were as guest roles, so she really doesn't need to be listed in those series categories. Her guest roles are covered in her article and probably the episode articles. Klingon characters may deserve a category, those who portrayed them don't. (That category would be up for deletion in a second on Wikipedia if it were created.)
Regarding by nation categories
Categories which are nation based should not use the nations' adjectives since those can be misleading. We should use the name of the nation.
Here is a list of nations where the people can call themselves Americans:
Here are the territories of the United States:
And according to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq was briefly a United States territory.
Those nations are all in North American and South America. Also, having to figure out the adjective of some of those makes me want to just go with Occupation from Nation. Are we really going to have a category called Tobagan actors? I am not sure that is even right. And what would the adjective be for those from the nation of Kyrgyzstan? I would prefer to just create a category Actors from Kyrgyzstan then have to look around for the adjective for it. We need to think that far in advance.
In closing from Aleena
That is all I can think of for now. I will think on what has been said so far.I will add more to this later when I am not so tired. My brain is frying. -- LA (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Another Response
I agree on the adjectives for countries. That has concerned me a bit, and my feeling is we can standardize it to not use the adjectival form.
Instead of a space, we've been using an asterisk for the sorting at the beginning. It has to do with being user friendly: some people have difficulty visually resolving one space versus two, so it leads to fewer typos.
We've run into that capitalization preference from Wikipedia users before. Wikipedia is a wonderful site, ground-breaking and massively popular. The contributor community as a group there chose to go with non-standard article capitalization. We've had some discussion of that here as well. Personally, I prefer the traditional punctuation. I like grammar. I assume part of the reason for making that change to not using title case is to differentiate Wikipedia from the traditional written world, like encyclopedias. That's similar to the way that Noah Webster codified American spelling, in part to separate us from the British and Samuel Johnson. As I mentioned, I usually like to have more than one option. It just makes it difficult for people to create the internal links if it's inconsistent here. I understand how it could be easier for people who aren't used to typing in title case. If the group came to a consensus to change what we've been doing to the Wikipedia style capitalization, of course that would stand. I've liked having articles that are traditionally punctuated. I worry (in a slippery slope hyperbolic argument :) ) that the articles themselves would begin to look like IMs (Instant Messages), without capitalizing the word "I" and using Internet style abbreviations. However, I would go with the group choice.
I do disagree on the idea of limiting categories in the way you illustrate with Gabrielle Union. I love the idea of people being able to look up actors from their own state or decade or who portrayed people in their profession. The confluences are part of the human part of the story. What Links Here is a good tool, but requires a lot of clicking and reading to see the basis for the link. I would still =add= categories to Gabrielle Union (noting she was born in Nebraska, for example). Can you name another actor from Nebraska? You could after she was put into the Nebraska Actors category. :)
We have been tolerant of mulitple points of view here. The idea that someone's work would be "up for deletion in a second on Wikipedia if it were created" because of a difference of opinion on the subjective values of worthiness or significance (not the accuracy) would be enough to make me very regretfully end my involvement here if it was employed here. While I have advocated for my preferences, we have (for the most part) avoided negating someone else's choices without discussing it or having a more objective reason (such as standardization of capitalization).
We've been a relatively small group, and civility and respect have been able to flourish in this environment. I've been proud of the high quality of articles here, of the "collective wisdom" approach, and yes, of the tolerance of different approaches. As the site grows, I've always known that it would become more difficult to maintain that sense of community and friendliness. Regardless of what happens in the future, I have enjoyed the time I have spent here.
I hope to continue this discussion with you, and I hope others become involved. I believe in inclusiveness. I also have a background in database design, and that was both influenced by and influences my feeling that all authors, actors, and so on are "deserving" of inclusion and of having their own categories.
I want to understand your position better. What is the negative to having Gabrielle Union in, for example, in a category for actors from Nebraska? Is it a concern about memory use? If she is also in the category to which you propose limiting her, how is that hurt by having her in the additional category?
--Bufocalvin 11:19, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Why to not use title case
Let's say you are writing an article about a vampire. This vampire has traits normally associated with vampires, but one thing is different. His vampiric fangs only show right before he feeds and distort his facial features.
Now, if the article on vampiric fangs were in title case, I would have to add a lot more to that article link to make it flow with the sentence.
Instead of just typing:
[[vampiric fangs]]
I would have to type:
[[vampiric Fangs|vampiric fangs]]
The same holds true with categories.
All of the actors from Nebraska do deserve their own category.
To get that link, all I typed was
[[:category:actors from Nebraska|]]
If that were in title case, I would have to type:
[[:category:actors From Nebraska|actors from Nebraska]]
Too much extra typing.
And what if I wanted to add a link to the article about things that go bump in the night? (It's probably a redirect to monsters.)
As to people categories
I do not have a problem putting Gabrielle Union in a category that deals with all of the actors from Nebraska, what I do have a problem with is the category:Gabrielle Union. She does not need a category with her name on it. Depending on the size of the cast and crew of a motion picture, I see articles with over 50 categories if each motion picture is placed in the categories set up for each person that was part of it. All of the actors, writers, directors, etc. would already have links in the acticle about the motion picture; so they do not need to be put in the people's categories as well.
Let's look at all the categories the film Star Trek: The Motion Picture would go into if each person had their own categories.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Depending on how many people from the film that get articles which will create categories, that one article could end up in over 200 categories named after people. All of those categories which are already created really need to go.
And when I said that a category would be up for deletion, what I should have said is that it would be up for deletion and discussed for a week to reach a consensus. I have put categories up for deletion, and they have survived intact. I have also tried to save my favorite categories, but they were deleted when consensus showed that they were unneeded.
So, categories with just a person's name are not needed, in my opinion. The film above should only be in a few categories, 1979 films, Films made in the United States, English language films, Science fiction films, and Star Trek films.
Oh, and I prefer the word "films" over "movies" since that is what Wikipedia uses and it is also a little less typing over time. There are thousands of films out there, and that is possibly thousands of extra characters to type. Television series are movies too, since they "move" too. :) -- LA (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)
On Filmographies in Articles
That's another interesting point. Clearly you (and MarshAngel, whom I greatly admire and respect), like having lists within articles. I prefer to have those lists grow through having categories, and here is my reasoning on that. If there is a category for Kevin Bacon movies (and there is :) ), and if every movie article is categorized for all of the actors listed in the article (and that is what I usually do through an automaated process...I've been keeping up as articles are created, and retrofitting older ones), someone doesn't have to go to each of the articles for each person (including Kevin Bacon) in the new movie article and update them. That's part of the advantage of the database approach. Your List of anthology TV series, for example, needs to be updated as new series are broadcast. I would find it more difficult to go into that article and add the new series in the appropriate alphabetical location than to allow the computer to place it in the right spot alphabetically within the Anthology TV Series category. I love lists myself, and you may find it easier to go to individual articles and update them. I find it easier to do the categorization of the articles and use the built in capabilities of the software.
On the other hand, I completely understand the value of a list in Scifipedia in promoting article creation. The categories obviously do not display articles which have not been created yet. I don't like seeing red links, and it does encourage me to do new articles when I see them. :)
--Bufocalvin 12:04, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Lists in articles
We are not creating a database here, we are creating an encyclopedia. I would not want to print out a basic article, and then have to print out a category listing which is already poorly formatted. The filmographies would have the titles of films and television series already in italics which is grammatically proper. I would rather have the lists in the articles which would be printed all at once. -- LA (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Response from MarshAngel
On the matter of title case. While I am inclined towards lower case, the reason things are the way they are is because the initial categories on the site, prior to my involvement were in that format and I think both Bufo and I veered towards consistency by continuing in the same vein. Changing at this point is a Herculean task. It might be worth it but I'm not sure.
My personal feelings in regard to categories is that each article should be in the minimum number of categories rather than the maximum. I think categories should be definitive and specific rather than wide ranging.
I have mixed feelings about people categories. I've already shared my feelings on that with Bufo. I'm not a fan of categories so narrow that only one article will end up in it. I truly understand Bufo's desire to be inclusive (It's very SciFi :)) butto be honest I don't think someone like Jaye Davidson who has three credits and only one genre credit and is no longer an actor really needs a category for his one credit. We may also end up with a longer list of categories at the end of an article that's larger than the article itself.
I think what LA is proposing is a complete overhaul of the entire site. These changes would affect all 8000+ articles. I think I'd like to hear from someone else besides us three about their preferences before I'd go ahead and start making those changes.
--MarshAngel 16:55, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Aleena responds to MarshAngel
MA,
Firstly, I hope you do not mind my abbreviation of your user name from here on out.
I feel that it would be very worth the effort to overhaul the category system here. I am very ready, willing, and able to help. I may not be an administrator or sysop, but I can point out to the powers that be which categories should be purged or renamed. People who may come here to edit may be like me who come from a Wikipedian background and sensibility. Your example of Jaye Davidson is perfect to show my reasoning. Also, you are so right in that we do not want more in the category section of the article than what is in the article.
Thank you for dropping by to comment. -- LA (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
A few comments from Candy
Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I adore it. The folks there are trailblazers. We who come afterward have much to learn from their choices.
For example, they made a choice to avoid having to deal with the quirky capitalization rules of English. Such a choice makes some things easier—and some things harder. We decided to stick with standard CMS title-case capitalization for category titles and for titles of works, but let it go for article headers. This does a little bit to ease the creation of links on-the-fly in an article, while still retaining most of the formality of an encyclopedia. It's not consistent, but you can't win 'em all!
I think we could profit from more discussion on lists in articles versus using subcategories to track lists. I agree that the wiki's subcategory display leaves something to be desired. But I also find that lists within articles are likely either to languish or to eat up much time in tending to them. I've been keen on the alphabetical access keys that Bufo and MarshAngel have been creating. What else do we need to think about here?
Let's avoid debate on who might or might not want to be identified as American. It's a touchy subject and we don't need to address it. I think we could come up with alternatives for people categories and decide what we like best. The two top contenders seem to me to be:
Canada Actors
Actors from Canada
I'll chime in on "movies" versus "films." The term "film" has, to me, connotations of "serious art." It puts me off. One letter more or less doesn't matter to me as much as the feeling I get when someone preferentially refers to some movies as "films" and to other movies as "movies." Our original set-up included a Movies category and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
There's much more to discuss, I know, particularly in regard to unique person categories. Everyone's opinion counts, and I'm hoping for more input from everyone about this. We want to be true to our ideals as science fiction fans, and to provide the most useful resource we can, and luckily we have a lot of prior experience (including observation of the pros and cons of Wikipedia's choices) to bring to the table.
- —Candy Cashanundudyub 17:52, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Aleena responds to Candy
Candy,
If you look at the section #Why to not use title case, you will see why using it is much more a pain than not using it. Remember titles for anything here may very well end up being used in sentences as common words or phrases. I think that we may need to start another discussion about general title rules, since this discussion was created for category naming. I will write it up sometime soon and get it posted.
I am of the opinion that an article should be something that one could turn in as an essay for a class. What grade would one get on an essay with a bunch of stuff stuffed at the bottom of it?
For the nationality categories, let's go with what would be more grammatically correct in a sentence.
Examples
- Bad grammar
- All of the Canada actors went to the award ceremony.
- Good grammar
- All of the actors from Canada went to the award ceremony.
About film versus movie, I have mostly removed the word movie from my vocabulary when speaking of a film.
First there were these amazing things called motion pictures. Well, motion pictures was a bit of a mouthful, so some bright person dubbed them movies. They were silent things with the dialog shown on the screen in words during the scenes. Then, wonder of wonders, people started hearing words instead of having to read them. The people on the screen actually talked. These motion pictures were called talkies.
I would seriously suggest that we eschew the use of nicknames for items in categories and articles. Movie is just a nickname for motion picture. Encyclopedias are serious and formal, and that is what we are creating here.
See MAs responce to the issue of unique person categories.
Thank you for dropping by to comment. -- LA (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Broadening
I'm glad to see the conversation broadening. I think it may have come across as a back and forth, and I think it's better if it's broader.
I think something that may help here is if I give an idea of what the current approach has been. That may be useful in considering a redesign.
To be up front, I've been doing most of the categorizing. My approach is based on relational databases. I've taught database design, so I understand that well, but could have a prejudice towards it. Certainly, what I do has been informed by discussions with MarshAngel and others.
Here's the way it typically works now:
1. Someone creates an article. Let's use the example of a movie. Typically, there are a few basic categories before i get to it (including the movies category).
2. I take the names (including the director, screenwriter, and so on), run it through a some programming that creates the categories for the names for the article, and put those categories into the article.
3. I do more categories, based on elements like themes, settings, the decade the movie was released, and so on.
4. Then, if the category has not already been created, I create it.
I've been doing that with all new articles, the featured article of the day, the hot topics, and sometimes with the referral links from the main Sci Fi Channel page. I also go back and do it retroactively to existing articles.
Here's part of why I categorize everything. When I'm creating the categories, I primarily use automation. It's much harder to be selective as to who to categorize, than to do them all. I also like having categories for all of them. It's hard to anticipate who will do more movies in the future. It's proactive, forward-thinking to already have categories created. It's getting so much easier, since many of the people already have categories. When things are the way I want them, any new actor for whom I create a category will only have the current article in it. That's the way it tends to be now.
After a discussion with MarshAngel, I recently started doing some other major changes. The goal now is to have each category that contains like items (movies, novels, that sort of thing) will only have two subcategories showing when you open that category. One will be for More Search Options for that category, which includes all sort of subcatgories, which may themselves contain subcategories. For example, within Actors there might be Actors by Role and within that subcategories for the roles. The second subcategory is Related Topics for that category, which includes the links to other categories.
LA correctly pointed out that the subcategories can be moved out of their alphabetical order by using the fact that an ascending sort puts punctuation before letters. However, it still seemed odd that I might be looking for an actor and have to scroll down to be able to see them. By putting them all into More Search Options or Related Topics, you can see the actual actor articles right away.
Oh, one other good point from LA. I never think about people printing things out: I just don't ever do that for articles any more. Having a list within an article would make that simpler, even though maintaining the article would be more difficult. I wonder how many users actually print things?
One last point in this one. I think there may be an idea out there that if an article appears in more than one category, the entire article is duplicated (in terms of memory). Duplicating the information would not make for what we call a "normalized database". Having links to the article in multiple tables does make sense under the database normalization rules, and that's what we've been doing here. :)
I'm sure Scifipedia will be stronger as a result of this discussion...thanks again, LA!
--Bufocalvin 22:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
More Comments
Movies Versus Films
Ah, for me, that's a very different issue, LA, as may not be surprising between the two of us at this point. ;) By the way, I first want to apologize. I was at the end of working seven days straight, more than eight hours a day, and I think I've been too abrupt in my responses. As you can tell, I'm passionate about organization and inclusiveness, and that (and being tired) colored some of my language.
The issue of movie versus film is that film is no longer technically correct for some movies. As you pointed out, movies move. That continues to be true, regardless of the technology. Film actually refers to the physical medium which was used. That's no longer true for some motion pictures. A movie shot on DV (digital video) does not use film. The continued use of the term "film" is simply a residual of the previous medium. It's similar to people saying that they "dial" a phone number. That obsolete phrasing is, I think, slipping out of popular usage. However, it was around for a long time after most people stopped using dial telephones. I don't have any problem with people using "film" in Scifipedia, I just have gone the opposite way that you have personally, and dropped film as a generic term for motion picture.
What's the Disadvantage?
I suppose the fundamental issue for me for those advocating fewer categories is to explain the disadvantage in having more. I see great advantages in having one article in more categories, I see few advantages in having it in fewer. Here are a few concerns I can see, but it would help me to see what other people who actually favor fewer think.
- It will be visually crowded
- Within the article itself, yes, there would be lots of categories at the bottom. To me, that's fun and a great thing. If I was reading about an author and could see at the bottom that that author was from my home town, I might click on it and have fun seeing who else was from there. Within the categories, we're getting the individual subcategories well-hidden and out of the way. The categories for each actor, author, and so and in their own categories in a spot in SCIFIPEDIA, not in the subject category. At least most of them are, I'm still working on that. I would love it as a user if, when I clicked on More Search Options for Actors, I saw things like Actors by Life Experience.
- It's a lot of work
- I don't mind doing it. :) We're not asking everybody to do all those categories.
Actors from Canada versus Canada Actors
The question on this for me is not focused the correct grammatical use in a reference in an article. Generally, tne articles will not refer to a category, but to another article. I would not expect an article to be named "Canada Actors". As everyone is well aware, if a category or article is referenced, the display can be whatever you want. For example, one could refer to the Australian Actors category as [[:Category:Australian Actors|thespians from Down Under]], and it would display as the phrase after the pipe (the straight up and down line). Of course, I think we will make it more consistent and have either Australia Actors or Actors from Australia.
I think the decision on that is where we think people will most see the category listing. I don't know how to change the display for Subcategories within a category display. I know how to change how they sort, but not how they display. This doesn't make a lot of difference to me, but it should be consistent. When someone clicks on the :Category:Canada|Canada category, I would think everything there should start with Canada or everything shouldn't. Either it should say, Canada Authors, Canada UFOs, and so on, or it should say, Authors from Canada, UFOs in Canada, and so on.
By the way, I can't resist: it seems inconsistent to be concerned about the grammar for this, and not the grammar in using Title Case. :)
Formality Versus Popularism
Encyclopedias don't have to be stodgy. I don't see anything wrong with using commonly used words and fun turns of phrase, as long as they link to something that explains what they mean. The Encyclopdia Brittanica is one style of encyclopedia, but so is The Guinness Book of World Records. Many people refer to Wikipedia as a "user-contributed and edited encyclopedia", or approximations of that. I don't think formality has been enforced there. For example, I don't think people consistently refer to The United States of America, but sometimes use U.S.. That's okay with me, if U.S. is linked to an article on the country. Forcing formality will, I believe. limit contributions from people who are intimidated by the requirement. When I was working for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the organization told me to use no abbreviations ever in documents. We had to refer to "John Watson, Medical Doctor" rather than John Watson, MD. That made it difficult for people to compose documents until we could give the software conversion tools.
--Bufocalvin 08:41, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Encyclopedias and Databases
Our perception of what is being done here is crucial. In project management, it is one of the most important elements. If not everyone is working towards the same basic goal, a lot of effort can be applied in different directions, impeding forward progress.
Here's my perspective. First, an encyclopedia is a database, albeit one with a reeeaaallllyyyy slow refresh rate. ;) The traditional encyclopedia, such as the Britannica, Compton's or the World Book, (and I've owned all three) is a collection of information presented in an organized fashion, which is also what a database is. Most people refer only to electronic databases as databases, but that is not how database designers do it. The slang for something like the paper Yellow Pages or a paper encyclopedia is a "paperbase".
Originally, electronic databases tended to have shorter information presentation (just a first name or a ZIP code, for example, until a report was generated) than a paper database, but as memory has gotten cheaper and more flexible, that has changed. Scifipedia is a database and an encyclopedia, in my mind.
Secondly, "we" are not editing an encyclopedia here. This is a wiki (a special type of encyclopedia, which is a special type of database), which encourages individual contribution. Personally, I think that the heterogeneity of styles in a wiki is one of the attractions. I think some people choosing to use formal language and some choosing to be more informal is good. As long as the information is accurate, understandable, and reasonably objective, I think that's fine. Linking the terms to the concepts helps improve the understandability. Whoops, forgot about people who are printing them out again...I have to think about how much accomodation has to be made for that segment of users.
When one reads various editions of the Britannica, a difference in styles for the articles is obvious, not just from iteration to iteration, but within the same edition. When an expert is asked to contribute an article, the style of that expert may differ from the general editors. The article is not completely rewritten to create a homogenous style.
That doesn't mean I don't think there should be certain standards, I do. Take spelling, for example. I'm fine both with the Johnsonian spelling and the Noah Webster versions. I normally type theatre, but I also normally type color. I don't mind if some people use color and some use colour. While we are creating this in English, I don't see it as American or British. The Internet can be without those geographical distinctions.
I would oppose someone using profanity or violating someone's copyright. I want it to be reasonably objective. I want to encourage contribution, even from those whose grammar skills may be lacking. If the article is actually incorrect grammatically, I've found that most people don't mind the upgrade. However, I don't make that a hard and fast rule. While "film" for a Digital Video production is technically incorrect, it's in common use. I don't mind the use of that. I think accuracy trumps formality, but common usage can trump formality.
That's my opinion...
--Bufocalvin 10:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Preserve the Union :)
Here is the argument for preserving categories for individual actors, such as Gabrielle Union.
Let's say Gabrielle stars in a new genre movie. There are two alternatives being presented.
- If she does not have a category of her own, the person creates the movie article. That person then goes to the Gabrielle Union article, and adds the movie into the hand-typed filmography within the article. The person reenters the name of the movie and probably the year and creates internal links. Assuming that the movie is not a one person show, the person repeats the process for each actor (or at least the featured ones) in the movie, going to each of the people's individual articles. Copy and paste could be utilized for putting in the movie.
- If she does have a category of her own, the person who creates the article about the movie includes the category Gabrielle Union Movies. Then the movie shows up in GU's category.
I find the latter much easier. I have code that converts all the names from the movie box into those categories: the whole process for all of the actors doesn't take a minute, if they all have categories. I have shared some code like that on my user page.
The Gabrielle Union category then might also includes subcategories like GU movies and GU TV series and so on.
As an example, let's use the Erick Avari category. Maybe a Stargate SG-1 fan knows him as Kasuf. That fan clicks on the Erick Avari Characters category link at the bottom of the article. The fan notices the other character listed and says, "Oh, that's where else I've seen him: Heroes!" Next, the fan clicks the Erick Avari link at the bottom of that article. Maybe the fan never realized that Erick Avari had been in the movies as well. Maybe they've seen The Mummy, but ends up renting Flight of the Living Dead. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's a good thing (I haven't seen that movie ;) ), but it's a service to the fan. Without the category listings, you have to read through the whole (frequently updated article) to get that information.
The Erick Avari category shows in two places:
- On the Erick Avari article and in the subcategories for Erick Avari
- In the Organization Subcategories category, which is deliberately pretty buried
This doesn't seem to me to be an imposition to have it, and it does seem very useful to me.
Oh, and on the question about what grade a student would get if they turned in a paper with a lot of things at the bottom? They might not be able to get an A if they didn't have things at the bottom...when those things are footnotes and references, and those are the equivalents to the categories. ;)
--Bufocalvin 15:34, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Aleena responds
The first example is the correct way to write an article on a person. Treat every article as if you were going to turn it into a professor as an essay. The filmography is an important part of a motion picture professional's career and should be included in the article. Using automation to create articles is a really bad idea. A basic template to get the ball rolling, okay, I can see that. A person's article should have a brief introduction with career highlights, a biographical section, a career section which includes all occupations, and then the bibliography or filmography.
If the film has the following in the credits, the categories after should be created.
- A film by Person's Name
- A film by Company's Name
- A Person's Name Production
- A Company's Name Production
- A Person's Name Film
- A Company's Name Film
If those are in the film's credits, the following samples should be used as a guide.
If more than one person or company is listed as in the first list of this section, then include them all.
So, if a film is a Stephen Speilberg Production, by George Lucas, and (for some odd reason not Lucasfilms) Miramax; then the following categories apply.
As you can see, there are no plain name categories in that list.
Now, let's say that George Lucas wrote several books, the category Books by George Lucas would be created. Since George Lucas now has two categories, the George Lucas category could then be created.
I do not want to have to click away to an unformatted list (category) to read a person's filmography. If it is that much a pain to find, I will just go to IMDb and get it on the first page.
Each film's, television series', and/or television series episode's article should have a list of actors, and each actor's article should have a list of films, television series, and/or television series episodes. -- LA (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Bufo Responds to Aleena's Response
This is a good example of the presentation of response with which I disagree. When you present things dogmatically, such as "the correct way" and judgmentally, such as "really bad idea", it doesn't become an exchange of opinions, it reads to me like a lecture. A person reading that might assume that it is the official policy of Scifipedia rather than simply the opinion of one user. A wiki is a community, and (in my opinion) should avoid condemnatory language to encourage more participation.
I also disagree with the content, so i'm interested in the justification for your opinions. I do not believe that every article in Scifipedia should be created as though it was being turned into a professor. I hope the site would have a much broader appeal than that. I have professors in my family, and even they enjoy reading things that are not essays. :)
Here's my problem with having a minimum requirement of a number of articles for category creation. One would have to be aware of how many articles there are. If the categories are created universally, it isn't necessary to do have that sort of knowledge. What is the reasoning or authority behind limiting categories to ones that have at least two articles? Knowing that will help me compare the value of that philosophy to the one of universal categorization.
I do think the filmography is certainly an important element in reviewing a filmmaker's career: that's a place we agree. :) That's why our standardized article has a link to the IMDb page, where that filmography is
