Wikipedia

Category talk:Organizations/Archive 1

< Category talk:Organizations
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Lquilter in topic cat scheme, redux

cat scheme

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We should trim this down and create a few basic subcategories.


  • Neutralitytalk 16:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Very good idea. I've started on this, by listing above my proposed layout of the current 84 subcategories. I was unable to catagorize quite a few of them, suggestions appreciated. I've also linked all the categories. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A few other issues:

  • Heritage, Ethnicity, Cultural history, Identity organizations ? Thoughts as to the best terminology to pick up things like the InterCeltic stuff and the Turanian Society and LGBT orgs, Latino orgs, and so on? I'm thinking tentatively "Organizations by ethnic and cultural identity"?
  • What about a supercat structure of:
    Organizations by subject
    Organizations by geographic region (picks up city, nationality, international)
    ... maybe others?
  • "Clubs and societies" seems a little non-obvious as the home for "hobbyist organizations" -- what about "hobbyist and recreational organizations"?
  • There's a problem with "political organizations" and "civic and political organizations" -- thoughts?

--lquilter 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New categorization scheme being developed at the Organizations WikiProject above. The concept we are developing to clean-up the coverage of this topic involves moving existing categories and articles into location, field, ideology, and kind. Stay tuned for more info or join the project to get involved.Oldsoul 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Category structure

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

(archived from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization

A few issues:

  • Heritage, Ethnicity, Cultural history, Identity organizations ? Thoughts as to the best terminology to pick up things like the InterCeltic stuff and the Turanian Society and LGBT orgs, Latino orgs, and so on? I'm thinking tentatively "Organizations by ethnic and cultural identity"?
  • What about a supercat structure of:
    Organizations by subject
    Organizations by geographic region (picks up city, nationality, international)
    Organizations by sponsorship or funding, not sure of the best term; but to pick up NGOs and Govt; and set up a tree that would include front orgs and types of govt orgs. Thoughts?
    ... maybe others?
  • "Clubs and societies" seems a little non-obvious as the home for "hobbyist organizations" -- what about "hobbyist and recreational organizations"?
  • There's a problem with "political organizations" and "civic and political organizations" -- thoughts?

--lquilter 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A few quick responses before bed:
  • I like the super cat concept, employed well by WP:WARS here.
  • I think we should redevelop the organization categories, and super cats with an eye towards our portal. Let's look at some other society and geography portals to see what they've done well.
  • Just had a peak over at the geography one, and I really like the look and layout of the navigation there.
  • We should distinguish political party organizations,(including all the local, regional and national party groups), and issue and general advocacy or lobbying groups that are inherently political in nature. There might be a fine gray line in sub-categories here, but it is there - lets find it!A:*I think that we should explore a flat-out avoidance of clubs. Some 'clubs' like the Boys and Girls Club for example enjoys registered or incorporated status as a non-profit, and becomes a no-brainer.
  • To that end, I'd like to propose that as part of our assessment strategy, we develop guidelines for including up to date information as to the official incorporation, charity or other publicly available registry information to verify and establish [ notability]. If we can start doing this, we should incorporate it this information into the ORG info boxes. I've got an increasingly clear concept of how those will be designed and I'll see about putting together some examples before the weekend.
Oldsoul 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just read this (I like the distinction between specific types of organizations. I.e. Non-profit, professional, academic, charity, labour, professional, government, business. I can't think of too many more, but the fewer we have the better.). Above I already proposed the creation of 4 task forces. The distinctions you mention also deserve specific focus I think but could all fall under civil society organizations: it depends on the civil society definition we'll use. For now let's first think out all possible organization-types and list them here. Brz7 14:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Brz7. I've set up a little sandbox for myself here. By the end of the day I should have an example of what I had in mind.Oldsoul 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that DMOZ has already put a lot of effort into figuring out how to structure this breakdown. Any overriding reason to go a different way?LeadSongDog 06:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I added here three categories (Aim, Focus and Impact and Legal status) following the categorization normally done in international legal mediation. I changed two categories (Foundations and societies) from "organization types" to "legal status" because those are defined by legal status and are not considered a type really. This done with utermost respect please feel free to contradict if reasonable, just trying to help from my background.

What I added was:

By impact and focus


By aim

By Legal status

I did not actually create the categories in case someone disagrees. By the way, great Project and much needed. Daoken 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

cat scheme, redux

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Okay - the old discussion seems to have died down; I'm trying to get it going again because this is chaos! As I'm sure we all agree.

My take on the above proposal is that it's pretty good but generally creates a subject tree. I propose four total "super categories" for Category:Organizations that would pick up some of the other as-yet-uncategorized orgs in a fairly simple tree.

  • organizations by geography
    • city
    • national
    • international
    • other geography categories that grow up
  • organizations by membership (women, lgbt, etc.)
    • professional orgs
    • identity orgs (women, lgbt, minorities, etc.)
    • supraorgs (orgs with org memberships)
  • organizations by subject
    • an ordinary subject hierarchy like we have in many other fields that could take advantage of the structural thinking already done for those other categories (items in professional orgs, identity orgs, would be doubly categorized as appropriate; for instance "Category:Library organizations" would be a "professional organization" in the "orgs by membership" tree and also a "social sciences organization" in the "orgs by subject" tree.
  • organizations by structure - legal status & structure are largely interdependent. This could pick up whatever key distinctions need to be made between nonprofit/NGO/charity versus governmental organizations versus for-profit business organizations versus any other relevant kinds of organizations.

I note that we should really deal with the non-viable distinction between "charity", "nonprofit", "non-governmental organization", ASAP, since orgs are apt to be categorized anywhere in those categories.

Thoughts? --lquilter 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Organizations/Archive_1&oldid=1109607972"