User talk:Soy - Revision history

Briess: /* Category automatic thingymabob */ new section

2010-04-23T17:26:03Z

Category automatic thingymabob: new section

Albedo: /* More and yet more Categories */

2010-04-21T10:15:37Z

More and yet more Categories

Soy: wrong button

2010-04-20T21:51:19Z

wrong button

Soy at 21:44, 20 April 2010

2010-04-20T21:44:24Z

Albedo: /* More and yet more Categories */ new section

2010-04-20T21:20:09Z

More and yet more Categories: new section

GiantTiger11 at 00:37, 16 April 2010

2010-04-16T00:37:17Z

Soy at 00:06, 14 April 2010

2010-04-14T00:06:28Z

174.100.215.148 at 02:25, 10 April 2010

2010-04-10T02:25:29Z

Soy at 18:26, 6 April 2010

2010-04-06T18:26:01Z

Emi at 20:16, 5 April 2010

2010-04-05T20:16:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 23 April 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --[[User:Soy\|Soy]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Soy\|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Soy\|C]])</small></sup> 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --[[User:Soy\|Soy]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Soy\|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Soy\|C]])</small></sup> 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::A wiki is a collective process, so the fact that I fail to see how it ''is'' productive is not grounds for me to tell you to stop. But nor do I see any explanation or defense for why it ''is'' productive. Organization for organization's sake? Okay, there is a point at which ''more organization'' really achieves nothing productive. Who will look at the Physics category and find useful info there that isn't found in links from one of the pages? One user? Ten? Is that sufficient grounds? I dunno - if you're excited about it, knock yourself out - maybe I'm just being dense, and just because there is such a point doesn't mean you've reached it, my opinion notwithstanding. Readya later.--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		::A wiki is a collective process, so the fact that I fail to see how it ''is'' productive is not grounds for me to tell you to stop. But nor do I see any explanation or defense for why it ''is'' productive. Organization for organization's sake? Okay, there is a point at which ''more organization'' really achieves nothing productive. Who will look at the Physics category and find useful info there that isn't found in links from one of the pages? One user? Ten? Is that sufficient grounds? I dunno - if you're excited about it, knock yourself out - maybe I'm just being dense, and just because there is such a point doesn't mean you've reached it, my opinion notwithstanding. Readya later.--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Category automatic thingymabob ==
		+
		+	Sorry, I'm rather dense and didn't notice you left a talk page message about this until now. I think it's a good idea personally, but I'm not sure how much organization (or meta-organization) we should be doing or not. However, that's not my place to decide that. Feel free to use your bot to categorize (if you haven't already) the namespaces appropriately. --[[User:Briess\|Briess]] 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 21 April 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like [[:Category:Creatures]] where you have a 'plain' category that links to a sub-category for each version of DF. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces. This way when a reader clicks on a category link, they can rest assured that they will <b>only</b> get pages belonging to that version of DF.		:My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like [[:Category:Creatures]] where you have a 'plain' category that links to a sub-category for each version of DF. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces. This way when a reader clicks on a category link, they can rest assured that they will <b>only</b> get pages belonging to that version of DF.
	:You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --[[User:Soy\|Soy]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Soy\|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Soy\|C]])</small></sup> 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --[[User:Soy\|Soy]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Soy\|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Soy\|C]])</small></sup> 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
		+	::A wiki is a collective process, so the fact that I fail to see how it ''is'' productive is not grounds for me to tell you to stop. But nor do I see any explanation or defense for why it ''is'' productive. Organization for organization's sake? Okay, there is a point at which ''more organization'' really achieves nothing productive. Who will look at the Physics category and find useful info there that isn't found in links from one of the pages? One user? Ten? Is that sufficient grounds? I dunno - if you're excited about it, knock yourself out - maybe I'm just being dense, and just because there is such a point doesn't mean you've reached it, my opinion notwithstanding. Readya later.--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 20 April 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:

	There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
−	:I fail to see how this is non-productive. If you take a look through the category pages you can see the result I am trying to achieve with the numerous edits that I have done to try to reorganize things. I posted notes about what I was attempting to do in multiple places and received no feedback whatsoever until this point. If you have a better suggestion for organization I would be happy to implement it. My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like [[:Category:Creatures]] where you have a 'plain' category that links to each version of ~~that category~~. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces.	+	:I fail to see how this is non-productive. If you take a look through the category pages you can see the result I am trying to achieve with the numerous edits that I have done to try to reorganize things. I posted notes about what I was attempting to do in multiple places and received no feedback whatsoever until this point. If you have a better suggestion for organization I would be happy to implement it.
		+	:My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like [[:Category:Creatures]] where you have a 'plain' category that links to a sub-category for each version of DF. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces. This way when a reader clicks on a category link, they can rest assured that they will <b>only</b> get pages belonging to that version of DF.
		+	:You are correct in that it does create three times the categories (four once more pages are added for 23a), however it was the best solution for organization that I could come up with. --[[User:Soy\|Soy]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Soy\|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Soy\|C]])</small></sup> 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 20 April 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:

	There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
		+	:I fail to see how this is non-productive. If you take a look through the category pages you can see the result I am trying to achieve with the numerous edits that I have done to try to reorganize things. I posted notes about what I was attempting to do in multiple places and received no feedback whatsoever until this point. If you have a better suggestion for organization I would be happy to implement it. My general plan of attack was to segregate each category so that it ends up something like [[:Category:Creatures]] where you have a 'plain' category that links to each version of that category. It is almost like assigning each category to a namespace (like the articles are) only without actual namespaces.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 20 April 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Categories==		==Categories==
	Thanks forthe heads up. [[User:GiantTiger11\|GiantTiger11]] 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)		Thanks forthe heads up. [[User:GiantTiger11\|GiantTiger11]] 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	== More and yet more Categories ==
		+
		+	There is a point when a new category really achieves nothing productive. "Physics"?--[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 21:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 16 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==deletion requests (etc.)==		==deletion requests (etc.)==
	Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)		Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Categories==
		+	Thanks forthe heads up. [[User:GiantTiger11\|GiantTiger11]] 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 14 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==deletion requests (etc.)==		==deletion requests (etc.)==
	Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)		Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
−	.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 10 April 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==deletion requests (etc.)==		==deletion requests (etc.)==
	Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)		Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
		+	.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 6 April 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	I made a couple changes, it should work just fine now whether it is used in 40d or Df2010. Thanks for pointing it out. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)		I made a couple changes, it should work just fine now whether it is used in 40d or Df2010. Thanks for pointing it out. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	:For most templates there's no reason making a change similar to mine would break anything. Just don't do it to <nowiki>[[category:foo]]</nowiki> links. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)		:For most templates there's no reason making a change similar to mine would break anything. Just don't do it to <nowiki>[[category:foo]]</nowiki> links. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	==deletion requests (etc.)==
		+	Done. And that was perfect, np by me. Readya later, --[[User:Albedo\|Albedo]] 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:16, 5 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Re: Template Alloy3 ==		== Re: Template Alloy3 ==
	I made a couple changes, it should work just fine now whether it is used in 40d or Df2010. Thanks for pointing it out. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)		I made a couple changes, it should work just fine now whether it is used in 40d or Df2010. Thanks for pointing it out. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 17:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
		+	:For most templates there's no reason making a change similar to mine would break anything. Just don't do it to <nowiki>[[category:foo]]</nowiki> links. [[user:Emi\|<span style="color:#8a4e4e">Emi</span>]] [[user_talk:Emi\|<span style="color:#6a3e4e">[T]</span>]] 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)