Allright, this is long overdue. There are WAY too many Categories on our pages. While we should have categories, we don't need nearly as many on each page. For examble, Angel Wings has 4 categories at the time of posting: Items, Rico Jr., Hero, and Jobs. Items is justified, because it is an Item. Rico Jr. is justified, because they are the only source for Angel Wings and it is his primary drop. Hero is not justified. The Hero category is too vague; it is not the primary focus of the article or what the article is itself (an item). Jobs is not justified. Just because the word "Job" is mentioned once, does not mean Jobs is needed as a category. This also leads into linking. On the Dungeons article, we don't need to have a category for every single dungeon! We can just have the Dungeon category on each individual dungeon page. Monsters, at the time of this article, has 43 categories. 43 CATEGORIES. Categories are there to help direct people to similar pages, but with that many pages, it all blends into mush. I will not say I am not guilty of this problem; I am. However, it is time to do something about it. This will most definitely make the wiki better for the communtity of Dokapon Kingdom!
Supperman88 wrote: Why does the size of the wiki matter? Big or small, "Categories help organize the wiki and make it easier for readers to find related content." (http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Category ) Again, relating to my last post, while the Darkling article mentions "Items," but items is not the focus the Job class known as Darkling is, so a category could be Jobs. Items should not be a category on the Darkling page, because if I look at the Items category page, and I want to find similar pages to the Items article, the Darkling page is not neccessarily the page I am looking for.
I have stated many reasons supporting my side of the arguement, and I have done my fair share of disproving your reasons why we should have many categories. Give me 5 good reasons why we should have many categories; try to make me see it your way.
Supperman88 (talk) 18:20, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think bigger wiki have a lot of pages, such as 250, 500, 1000, even 2500! So the categories can connect. But our wiki just over 100 pages, sometimes if we use TGCP, they won't connect.
- They connect pages.
- We have such less pages that we need categories to connect.
- Bigger wikis have more pages.
- That link doesn't mention anything about TGCP.
- Some wikis don't use TGCP.
1. Categories are supposed to connect pages, but a page, such as "Darkling" has 24 categories. According to your arguement, this is a good thing because Darkling connects pages. Except it doesn't. It will link to the CATEGORIES in question, not the pages themselves. Therefore, if we use the "Items" category on the Darkling page, (which shouldn't be on the page anyway) and I go the Category:Items page, I have 60 links to go to. 60. How is this helpful? If I look into the "Jobs" category, I get 31 pages. Wait, aren't there only 12 jobs in the game, plus the 1 "Jobs" article itself? Categories should "hyperfocus" into the main idea of the page, and be there to find other pages like itself (e.g. The job Darkling has a category of "Jobs," which leads me to the Acrobat, another special job in the game). Working backwards, if I am on the page "Items" and I click on the "Items" category, does a page about the Darkling help me look in-depth into other items of DK? No, it doesn't. Maybe you want to find out more about on Weber the Trickster, the person who gives you the "power of darkness." We don't need to have the category "Special Event NPCs on the page; we can just link to the page "Special Event NPC's, no category needed. I don't disagree about linking to other pages, but the linking in question needs to be through the blue links on the page that leads to other pages, not the categories.
2. Ok, but can't we connect with a category tree? Starting from Characters, we can go into Adventurers, into Jobs, into the Specific Job, etc. Less pages would logically mean less categories, right? There seems to be just as many Category pages on our wiki as articles on the wiki...
3. Smaller wikis have less pages so... refer to #2.
4. Why does it need to mention it; it is pretty much self-explanitory. This is why many big wikis follow this ideology, because it is the most effective and most helpful for the reader.
5. Then, like us, they should have this. There is a reason big wikis have low # of categories per page.
Smaller wiki =/= different way of managing from big wikis. Likewise, A pound of lead is just as dense as a ton of lead; A smaller wiki should model itself after a bigger wiki. The categories on bigger wikis are different then ours; they have things like "Characters in ...," which is a subcategory of "Characters," hence the "Category tree" I have been eluding to through my posts.
I still can't see it your way; I want more reasons why you think this is a bad idea, because I have disproven your points you have made; you can't deny that. I have no issue defending this topic, so hit me with your best shot! Just, be nice about it. We can have differing opinions; that's okay. Just, at the end of the day, let's make sure this doesn't effect our relationship as Admins on the wiki, and when it is all said and done, we will cast it out as water under the bridge.
If you use TGCP, and with your idea, we need to delete lots of categories. The readers may be confused by TGCP, so this is my reason.
If you use TGCP, and with your idea, we need to delete lots of categories. The readers may be confused by TGCP, so this is my reason.
This is a fair point, and I see your side on this reason. As a smaller-ish wiki, we are starting the transition from small wiki to medium sized wiki. This transition happens around 100 pages or so, depending on the wiki. Lets face it, Dokapon Wiki probably won't grow to be a large wiki due to the lack of enough topics to make pages for. That being said, More isn't neccessarily better when it comes to categories, as I have mentioned. As for a remedy to deleting categories, if the transition is made quickly, say, 3 days at most, only the aftermath of TGCP will be recognized. I don't disagree that there might be confusion at first, but it will subside overtime, and there will be a wiki with crisp, concise categories to guide the reader to articles. Also, we are still growing, so if we put this off, we will grow into a wiki that might get more attention, therefore more confusion later.
It will have a chance to grow over 250 pages, only if we create all monsters article and their strategies, when we reach that point, TGCP will be useful and helpful.
Then, while I still think we should do TGCP, offer a compromise. We limit pages to have a maximum of 10 categories. Less important categories on pages will be removed (not completely, but on a page by page basis). This doesn't completely fix the problem, but it offers a band-aid to help get the readers accustomed to fewer categories. Eventually, this band-aid will need to be removed, but when that time comes, we will re-open this topic for debate once more. What do you say 333-blue? Does this sound good to you. I would prefer the full instatement now, but I can wait and compromise, but only if you compromise with me.
Supperman88 (talk) 03:44, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
Some how I'm thinking, we can half TGCP, too because we had reached 100 pages.
Ok. I will compromise for now on TGCP. I feel the course of action is to limit each page down to a MAXIMUM of 10 categories. Once we reach 200 pages, we will have to use TGCP to the full effect, but for now 10 is fine. However, when 200 pages comes along, we have some serious work to do. This includes changing categories and removing categories. I am fine waiting, but I make myself clear that when the time comes, we have to be ready. Is this okay with you 333-blue, or you, the reader? If you disagree, please post, but I aim to officially start removing categories on Tuesday, October 13, into Wednesday, October 14.
Umm, it is 250 pages, not 200.