Category talk:Cervine

Something on my mind here. Should we be using fancy names like "Lapine" and "Cervine" instead of "Rabbit" and "Deer"? Or can we just cross-reference the two categories somehow? --Buck 20:38, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

I chose to use "cervine" over on Bryan's Picks because "Summer Job" was in the list and it was a moose TF instead of a deer one, there's no particular reason to use it as a Shifti-wide category. Back in the day I was careful to set up Phil's category as "Phil Geusz" in case of just this eventuality. :) Unfortunately, Mediawiki doesn't support redirecting or moving of categories, so changing categories has to be done the hard way - editing each and every article that's in them. Bryan 23:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Maybe set up overall categories, and then make more specific ones subcategories, and the author can either flag their story for either category?

For example, we could have a Category::Feline, and a Category::Cougar which in itself is in the Category::Feline.

Too bad we can't redirect categories, but we could always subcategory them I suppose.

--Jetfire 07:46, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I don't really see the need for all these subcategories yet. I thought "Category: Canine" was just fine without being split into foxes and dogs and such. I prefer general categories, myself. But, admittedly, Shifti will only get bigger... --Joysweeper 08:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

They may not be needed, but I admit I'm an organizer at heart at times, and like to fit things in their own little nooks when I can. And it was somewhat anticipating/guessing at the need too. While "Mountain Goats" are unlikely to get a tonne of stories written about them, they would be lost in a greater Bovine category which would likely be mostly cattle cows and bulls. Ditto with the Feline category and Canine categories; those are very likely to get big as time goes on.

--Jetfire 11:55, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I suppose. Still, I'm looking askance at separate categories for each species of bear, and "Bulls" getting a category all to themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to antagonize you, but my thinking is that there's such a thing as too many nooks. Don't take this suggestion seriously, I'm being facetious - If it's going to go this far, it might as well go all the way and make a big category for dinosaurs. You know we need categories for everything under therapoda, and we'd have to put avians under maniraptora. --Joysweeper 16:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. I'd suggest not creating such highly specific categories until we actuall do have enough stories to warrant them. Otherwise you'll wind up with problems finding stories due to over-categorization - you'll be lost in a winding maze of categories with just one or two (or even no) stories in each. Kind of defeats the purpose of categorization. I've done a heck of a lot of category work on Wikipedia and should use that experience here to set this all up, but as Joysweeper can vouch I've been unable to spend much time on non-work-related stuff of late (sorry about that :( ). Perhaps we should go to Help talk:Categorization to discuss general organizational issues like this? Bryan 17:48, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

I have an ex-beta who's told me about getting six-month waits in an RP-based plot. As long as you don't slide that far, I don't think I have a right to complain. Not out loud, anyway. :p --Joysweeper 18:54, 30 April 2008 (EDT)