This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Hello, as a rampant fetishist for organisation, it's irked me quite a bit at the naming of recent categories. Category:Call of Duty: Black Ops Campaign "Operation 40" videos is ridiculously redundant and superfluous. It's already identifiable as being videos of the Black Ops campaign in the root category. There is also no reason to have speech marks in the category space since it's not in a main body of text. Category:Operation 40 videos would be much better and a hell of a lot easier to navigate to.

Just as an example, the entire organisation of Category:Levels and Category:Singleplayer for example is utterly unneeded. Singleplayer and Levels appear to same the exact same purpose, even if Singleplayer is just for singleplayer levels, the fact they're included in Levels serves to yet again be utterly bloated.

In my not so humble opinion, I think a category tree such as (obviously with better naming) would be ideal:

• Levels (devoid of articles)
  • Singleplayer levels (devoid of articles)
    • Call of Duty 3 levels
      • Fuel Dump
  • Spec Ops levels (devoid of articles)
    • Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Spec Ops levels
      • High Explosive
      • Estate Takedown

Discuss and pick my ramblings apart like the ravenous vultures you are. :D

13:14, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Support - I believe this is a good idea. Also, there Should be small guide be made to the naming of the categories. I'd be glad to make it, in fact. Madnessfan34537           14:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It's kinda hard to know when a category is redundant or not important, when you have 3500+ pages. My plan was to make the categories as they come, then after when i'm done, check them and delete any category that has less than 3 videos in it. 16:33, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

So for anyone idly browsing the media categories would wonder why one mission has a category whilst another doesn't? Either they all do or none do. I believe one attachment page has just one attachment, yet that's still around.

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

17:24, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong with my categories? I don't seem to get it. 00:31, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - While I agree that the example you used with the video categories is rather redundant and unneeded, I think that "Singleplayer" and "Levels" should just be merged into one root category. Other than the examples you have provided there aren't very many other redundant categories out there, yes I am aware there are some others, but nothing where the entire category tree of the wiki needs an overhaul. Redskin-26 17:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

In the example "Levels" is the root category, and "Single player levels" and "Spec Ops levels" are further branches of the levels category. 93.97.59.190 17:11, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Not just redundant, but superfluous. Redundant examples include: 90th Infantry Division, Category:Eastern Front, and for the grande finale Category:Weapons Per Game when the categories within that are also in Category:Weapons! 17:24, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - So, basically, the same "category tree" we're currently using with files? If I remember correctly, we did that because there was so many images so the categories had to be much more specific. I'm not really sure if that's a problem with the mainspace. DarkMetroid567^Talk 17:16, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

It looks utterly atrocious and all round messy. I'm sure that's reason enough.

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

17:24, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I don't really understand the point of this forum. If a few categories are broken, redundant and/or out of place then just fix them or have an Administrator delete them. This forum is recognizing a problem we are already well aware of and are already making efforts to fix. Redskin-26 17:31, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

We are? And we are?

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

17:34, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are. Whether everyone forgot about it or not, we are. Redskin-26 17:39, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another good forum introducing an idea trying to be quickly taken down with a COD:BB policy link. 93.97.59.190 17:41, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Really? :| --KλT 18:02, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Forgot about it? One cannot forget that they did not know.

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

17:43, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

"Ah, another good forum introducing an idea trying to be quickly taken down with a COD:BB policy link. " You mean introducing an idea that is already being put into use? Redskin-26 17:57, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

It is mainly in use with the images, not the mainspace, very little has been done to categories in the whole, looking at COD:CAT we have nothing to help users understand how cats work, I myself have some issues with them, comparing it to COD:FILE where there is a hierarchy system for all images, the cats page is very blank. 93.97.59.190 18:08, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Plus, why by Eris's tertiary nipple did you use COD:BB? I wanted a discussion on the matter, not to go rampaging around the wiki armed with a category module and a gallon of energy drink whilst no-one has the foggiest what I'm doing.

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

18:10, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I used COD:BB. I used in the sense that there isn't a need for a discussion of whether to add to COD:CAT. Not everything needs to be discussed in a forum before it is done. You could have just asked an Administrator to add a few pointers to COD:CAT and the example tree you used above. There is no need for a long drawn out discussion about adding to ever single inch of our polices. Redskin-26 18:21, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

In that case close the forum and add that Cats tree to COD:CAT now then if that's the resolution to this forum. 93.97.59.190 18:28, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

You used BB in the crassest way. It was unneeded and is quite frankly saying, "We don't want to talk about this, fuck off and do it yourself." No I could not just post on an administrator's talk page, because - and this may actually surprise you - I wanted the wiki to have their input on the subject. The entire concept of community participation is a new one, I know, And even if a general categorisation project was ongoing, this is still valid since I'm proposing a way to do it! Also, I am not trying to get anything added to COD:CAT. Perhaps you're confusing me for another person. Also, may I congratulate your fatuous attitude.

Vera ^{Talk to me.}

18:49, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

If this is going to resort to name calling, I'm going to close the forum. Please, continue on with this discussion in a way that is civil. As for the topic of COD:BB, that is an essay - not a policy, while there are times in which you can go ahead and do something out of being bold and there are times in which you must discuss something with the community, but this all depends on whether or not you feel that something should be discussed first. That being said, COD:BB should not be used in this case.

Personally, I think that just completely ignoring this forum would just lead to Panzer doing something with everybody else not having any idea what he's doing - and categorization (I'm assuming this would be large-scale), is a pretty important thing to discuss. -- azuris_ 19:14, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - A tree would be far more easier to use, as on Category:British it says "This is a list of characters that have served various roles in the British Military." However Daniel Clarke has never served in the British Military, ergo it may be better to expand on the British category with different teams and a civilians category, such as the following:

• British
  • SAS
    • Gaz
  • TF 141
    • Ghost
  • Civilian
    • Danial Clarke

A tree system in place would most certainly clean up the categories, and while it can be said we are working on it, I myself have yet to see a guideline for the Category tree, which is one of the main reasons categories confuse me so much, if they were simplified down to their core and given an easy to refer to guide categories could become far easier maintained as well as easier to understand by the masses. 93.97.59.190 21:23, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Action has been taken to reduce redundancy in categories. Redskin-26 21:22, September 6, 2012 (UTC)