Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I have been adding various entries to various categories such as infinity groupoid was added to category:∞-groupoid, as it was not there! This is partially for my information as I have forgotten what entries there are on things of current interest to me, but it will explain why there seem to be a lot of entries changed by me but not in substance.
What is assigning category:∞-groupoid supposed to mean? Just that the page is “related in some way” to ∞-groupoids?
That is what I have assumed was the intention.
So far we made hardly any systematic use of the “catery:xyz”-functionality. If there is energy available to start using it systematically, maybe it’s worthwhile thinking about how to do it.
I may have had a similar question as Mike, and for the following reason: if I were to start new “category:xyz”-categories, I’d start top-down. A category, I would think, would have to be fairly general. For instance I wouldn’t create “category: intergers” and then add that label to everything related to abelian groups and number theory. Rather I’d create “category: number theory” and the like.
Similarly here, I would have tended to think that a useful category subsuming in particular everything related to -groupoids would be somehting like “category: homotopy theory”. Or “category: -category theory”.
Incidentally, both of these exist, not as “category:”-categories, but as floating TOCs homotopy - contents and (infinity,1)-category theory - contents. Personally I would tend to order “-groupoids” under those general topics, since it is the context of these general topics that gives -groupoids their meaning.
Of course there is no harm done either way. But maybe it’s good to pause for a moment and reflect on how the “category:”-functionality is going to be used. If it is.
I had a go at category:knot theory and that seemed a good coherent topic. It occurred to me that too many categories will clutter up the bottom (and the top) of certain pages. The current categories are a bit strange. There is a possible double functionality here. The floating TOCs …-contents and the category:… The thing about the latter is that it allows a search on recent revisions to pages in that category.
But maybe it’s good to pause for a moment and reflect on how the “category:”-functionality is going to be used.
I agree and it was partially to experiment with that functionality that I started adding a category label where it seemed of possible use. (It provides a quick identification of the grey links within the entries in that list and so allows one to see where extra work is to go. Perhaps once a category has been used for some time and a contents page added then the category labels in those entries could be removed as being less useful???)
Perhaps once a category has been used for some time and a contents page added then the category labels in those entries could be removed as being less useful???)
If you feel like this, why not add a contents-page from the beginning?
I find them much more useful than the “category:”-functionality (I would find the “category:”-functionality useful if it produced a page containing exactly only the list of links to entries in the category, without all the other clutter that it currently displays, and if it were then possible to automatically include that list elsewhere). So I can’t comment on when you find the “category”-label non-useful anymore. But it seems evident that with currently clearly not enough volunteers to add “category:”-labels consistently, there’ll hardly be enough to remove them again.
Good question:
I think it is that I am not sure of the ‘categories’ that deserve to have contents.
if it were then possible to automatically include that list elsewhere)
That would be good. As I said the usefulness for me was primarily that of an automatic list of grey links that could / should be targetted.
Okay, I would suggest that if we add “category:”-markers, we do so for the “big context clusters”, roughly along the lines along which we add (or maybe I add, not sure if anyone ever picked up that habit) those floating tables of contents.
So I would that suggest that if any, then there clearly deserves to be for instance
category: homotopy theory
category: (infinity,1)-category theory
category: homotopy type theory
and all entries related to -groupoids I would suggest to mark with one of these categories (or maybe two or maybe all, not sure).
That looks a good start. There are others of the present categories that should perhaps be eliminated or consolidated. What do you think?
eliminated or consolidated
The best way to consolidate the category:-functionality would be to start adding category:-labels to entries consistently and comprehensively.
Will be a lot of work.
I was meaning by ‘consolidation’ something on the lines that you were saying for infinity groupoid. it should be put in a larger category which might be called infinity category. Similarly we have categories labelled orbifold and groupoid. They might be merged and relabelled something more enveloping.
Similarly we have categories labelled orbifold and groupoid.
Ah, I didn’t even notice that.
They might be merged and relabelled something more enveloping.
Yes! I would suggest
category: Lie theory
and
category: higher geometry
If you feel you have energy to look into this, that would be great!
I’ll try that out and see how people react. (It can always be changed back later.)
(Edit: the groupoid category only had one entry in it, so I deleted that category from the list at the end.
I have added one or two more entries to Lie Theory.)
What does S5-slideshow do? I notice it in the categories list but it has attracted only a very small list of entries … most by Anonymous Coward.
I don’t know about these slideshows. And maybe that Anonymous Coward doesn’t either. Every now and then I come across an entry that has “my first slideshow” written somewhere, accidentally. I then remove it.
I will clean the remainder. I renamed them Empty1, etc. I left a slideshow sandbox that Toby seems to have created, but removed the category name.
I didn’t really create slideshow sandbox; I just left it there (and possibly renamed it) because it was the first anonymous slideshow that we got, and I thought that maybe people would want to try the slideshow feature out. But of course nobody did, and it’s become clear that the slideshows that we get from time to time are mistakes (but how I don’t know).
I put Tim’s empty former slideshows into category: empty so that we can find them again. I also removed the redirects (important!).
Actually, this is probably better than category: spam even for former spam. The point, either way, is that there is nothing really there and these pages are available for use to make new pages (which mostly on Zoran remembers to do).
1 to 18 of 18