Category talk:Pseudoscience promoters

Not a fan of the fact that this is catted as both people and organizations. Split? Or just let it go? Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Best thing to do would be split into "pseudoscience promoters" and "pseudoscience promoting organizations," yes. Blue (pester) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. May wish to do the same thing for woo-meisters. Тy^Talk. 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And denialists. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright denialist organizations. Have no clue what to call woo-miester group though. Тy^Talk. 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The split just makes things harder to navigate. And it leaves out "promoters" that are not individuals or organisations. I move to return to the previous situation. ħuman 04:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I just tried navigating top down from the main page to specific outfits by category. The split between individuals and organizations is nonsensical. Nobody will change his wiki search strategy based on whether a denialist is an individual or an organization. The level of specificity in making the distinction between an individual and an org is irrelevant and just makes some of these hugely important articles too hard to find by category. Putting blogs and websites in with organizations just shows what a bad idea this is. Also why were multiple higher level categories removed from some of these entries? Someone who made this mess please help me understand if I'm not getting it. I'm inclined to start fixing it tonight. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Katz and I were following the category system as laid out by WP, and computer science design principle for such things, a tree. By all means, if it confuses you, change it. Тy^Talk. 13:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was always my theory that if a page is in a direct subcategory of a main category, such as the case of "pseudoscience promotors" as the subcategory and "pseudoscience" as the main, that you do not need both cats in one page. If the page is separated by more than one degree from the main category, i leave the main one in. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need at all to use "wikipedia"s rules for catting. And the "tree" is a needless hangover from physical filing systems. For instance, there is no reason at all why two cats can't be in each other. ħuman 05:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been using if it is in a subcategory, it is removed from the primary category. The problem is the sidebar templates. While they work fine for larger categories, they screw up when you add them to a page in a sub-category. That is why I made the Christianity, Islam, and Judaism(also Nebby asked for this one) templates, category:Religion's sub categories were becoming useless. Тy^Talk. 13:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's in a subcategory, regardless of its degrees from the root of the main category, I don't know why you'd leave it out of the more general category. The subcats are conceptual. They don't reflect any hierarchical reality and it's unlikely that someone unfamiliar with the subject would have any idea how to find the Discovery Institute if it's in Psuedoscience Promoting Organizations but not in Pseudoscience, Pseudoscience Promoters, and Creationists. There's also no utility in forcing someone to make a choice between browsing individuals and organizations when the fact of the subject being a person or larger outfit has nothing to do with the nature of ideas the person or outfit expresses. What computer science design principle are you referring to? I need to go look at how WP recommends doing this because, as a more or less noob to some of the nuances of wiki categorizing, a few of these schemes are completely unintelligible to me both as an editor and reader. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Inheritance. Nutshell: if it is in daughter category, no need for it to also be in parent category. Тy^Talk. 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following why that makes sense to the reader. Have a look at WP:Categorization and let me know if you think it's consistent with their cat policy, which I think is a very sensible one. I don't think it is or that it actually helps readers if they're navigating through the parent category and don't necessarily understand or know the criteria for membership in the daughter category. Or in the case of the specific example here, care one bit about the irrelevant distinction between an organization and an individual, particularly where it's so pointless that it has you catting websites, blogs, and newspapers as "organizations." Nutty Roux (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It follows a top-down design model, but whatever you feel is best, what makes sense to me probably won't make sense to others. Тy^Talk. 17:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really bad "rule" to use for this. Navigation aid for the unfamiliar reader is the key concept, not prettiness to geeks. ħuman 05:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The upshot is that probably several thousand "useful" mainspace edits just made it worse, not better, and will have to be found and fixed. ħuman 05:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree with Ty's catting policy in general, but the "individuals/organizations" split doesn't make much sense to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)