Tech, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, threadmoderator
113,995
edits
User talk:MystExplorer: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
→Redundancy: new section
No edit summary Tag: sourceedit |
(→Redundancy: new section) Tags: Shouting sourceedit |
||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
I just wanted to say thanks for your help in clarifying over my question. I'm going to have to find those audio dramas somewhere--Eight is one of my favorites and I'd love to see more of him. ;-) | I just wanted to say thanks for your help in clarifying over my question. I'm going to have to find those audio dramas somewhere--Eight is one of my favorites and I'd love to see more of him. ;-) | ||
== Redundancy == | |||
I had a whole message nearly written out too days ago before I got this massive headache. It's on my other computer, so I'll finish and send that ASAP. | |||
But just to be clear on [[T:RECURSION]] itself: give it a read. I actually recently discovered that I had been using [[T:RECURSION]] in my edit summaries for some time where T:RECURSION actually didn't apply at all. T:RECURSION is about what categories a category page is placed in. It says nothing of placing individual pages in related categories, or indeed even a category and its direct parent. | |||
Sometimes it's ''correct'' to place a page in two categories which are directly related. A writer might be a [[:category:Doctor Who novelisation writers|Doctor Who novelisation writer]] but also a [[:category:Doctor Who novelists|Doctor Who novelist]] in general, if they have written a novel which is not a novelisation. | |||
And, certainly with the case of a categorical connection so broad as [[:category:Latin words and phrases]] and [[:category:Theories and concepts]], yeah, there's zero crime at all in placing an article in both, if the topic is indeed both a Latin phrase and a theory and/or concept. | |||
Redundancy is placing an article in [[:category:Theories and concepts]] and [[:category:Social concepts]], where social concepts is more specific. Redundancy is placing an article in [[:category:Writers]] as well as [[:category:Human writers]], or [[:category:Human writers]] and [[:category:Writers from the real world]]. | |||
It is not redundant at all, though, when the two categories are tangibly different enough (and especially if far apart in the tree) that it really does apply to both. Remember, categories should be ''useful''. I'm not sure if we have three articles for [[:category:Economic theories]], but if we don't, people aren't going to be looking in Latin phrases for theories of that kind. Just because language itself is a concept, and parts of language are within the language tree does not mean those pages cannot also go in the broader category, when applicable. | |||
Original message from the other day coming later.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 22:21, January 8, 2016 (UTC) | |||
