Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 5

This is the talk page for the CORE TOPICS sub-project of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.

WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics COTW – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

Trees, continued

If we're going to evaluate trees, it might be useful to:

• broaden the number of options,
• see what is more or less common,
• see whether any clearly have very little or very much support,
• see what can be easily adjusted or eliminated.

Vir, I only listed one or two of yours. This is not intended to be a slight, but you have so many possibilities and I don't know where they all stand.

I suggested a two step process a half dozen times: First, we could use a relatively short-term focused decision to get a working set of topics based on the French Wikipedia front page main categories variant (or recently, the idea came up of combining an English wikipedia variant, the lists of list page topics, with the French categories); second, a follow-up complex process could be used which would be similar to what you outlined above. I repeated variants of this idea a number of times above and on various pages. This second suggested process never got too many comments, but I thought that Gflores, Martin and I were sort of expressing interest in doing the first focused step.

The long process will take a lot of time. I don't have time to particpate in it.

The options which I *organized* are all in one place, here: topic trees. That organized page draws on various of the elements you list below and adds links to addition work on organizing topic outlines. I think it is better for this info to be on a separate page with summaries and selected examples on the talk page instead of dumping in everything here.

If we choose to do the short process first (deliberating on a small set of long options based on the French and English Wikipedia top category versions), I can participate in a wrap up. If the long evaluation process starts happening intensely now, I have to step back from this process until summer at earliest, as I don't have time to participate. If there is a slow growth of the long process after a short intro, I can participate. However this works out, I trust it will be fruitful. Best, Vir 00:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Does anyone have any specific objections to our current tree, that Martin and Vir have worked on? If not, maybe it would save us all time to just go with that. Maurreen 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Gflores ^Talk 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me too for now. That tree's top categories are a revision of the French main page top categories. (Per recent discussions, I just changed spelling of "Art" to "Arts" there.) In addition, it works for me to do a gradual (months long) process of looking at and comparing lots of options for a revised category scheme (with wide input at some point). I think an improved design can be created. (And, there may be more than one such improvement that we want to implement.) Thanks for the suggestion, Vir 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Undetermined number of main branches

Choose not to choose, at least not now.

• The paper version could be arranged alphabetically, as is typical.
• The digital version could have any number of categories, as the currentonline version does.
• More progress in 1.0 in general may help make such a decision later.
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

Organic tree

• Add categories only as needed, when the the number of "done" article, or articles on a given branch, become too many. Of the current core topics, right now only about six are FAs and 14 are A class.
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

Three main branches

by Maurreen

• Cultural
• Geographic
• Technical
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

Four branches

by Maurreen

• Biographic
• Cultural
• Geographic
• Technical
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

Eight branches

current tree, mainly by Walkerma

• Art
• Culture & Society
• Everyday Life and Leisure
• Geography
• Natural Sciences & Mathematics
• Philosophy & Religion
• Social Sciences
• Technology & Applied Sciences
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?
  • This is pretty good. But I would change "Art" to "Arts" or "Arts and Literature." Maurreen 00:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

by Vir, Long Option 6A

• Arts & Humanities
• Beliefs & Religions
• Leisure & Everyday Life
• Society & Social Sciences
• Technology & Applied Sciences
• The Earth & Earth Sciences
• Nature & Natural Sciences
• Abstractions & Mathematics
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?
  • This is progress. But "Beliefs" and "Abstractions" are too vague for my taste. And some of the titles seem redundant. Maurreen 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

by Vir, Long Option 6A -- one-word labels

• Humanities
• Religions
• Leisure
• Society
• Technology
• Earth
• Nature
• Math
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?
  • This is more progress. I favor being concise. I adapted this below, see what you think. Maurreen 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

from Main Page

• Arts
• Biography
• Geography
• History
• Mathematics
• Science
• Society
• Technology
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?
  • One of my favorites. Maurreen 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This one is my all-round favourite, but I think "Philosophy and Religion" could be added. Sunray 18:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

another set from the Wikipedia:Browse page

• Arts & Culture
• History
• Mathematics
• Natural Science
• Philosophy & Religion
• Social Sciences
• Society & People
• Technology
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

from WP:RFC

• Economy and trade
• History and geography
• Language and linguistics
• Maths, science, and technology
• Media, art and literature
• Politics
• Religion and philosophy
• Society, law, and sex
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

adapted by Maurreen from Vir's 6A

• Arts (to include literature, whether it is in the title or not)
• Geography
• Everyday Life
• Philosophy and Religion
• Social Sciences
• Technology
• Math
• Natural Sciences
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

Ten main branches

Britannica Main Categories [1] (I've changed the original order to make it alphabetical. Maurreen 23

55, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

• Arts & Literature
• The Earth & Geography
• Health & Medicine
• History
• Life
• Philosophy & Religion
• Science & Mathematics
• Society
• Sports & Recreation
• Technology

Dewey Decimal System

• Generalities (This could probably be excluded.)
• Philosophy & psychology
• Religion
• Social sciences
• Language
• Natural sciences & mathematics
• Technology (Applied sciences)
• The arts
• Literature & rhetoric
• Geography & history
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

main categories at Wikipedia:Browse

• Arts
• Biography
• Culture
• Geography
• History
• Mathematics
• Philosophy
• Science
• Society
• Technology
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

from List of reference tables

• Reference (This could probably be excluded.)
• Art and Culture
• Geography
• History and Events
• Mathematics and Abstractions
• People
• Philosophy and Religion
• Physical Sciences and Nature
• Social Sciences and Society
• Technology
• Possible disadvantages, adjustments or other comments?

More branches

I lean toward no more than 10 main branches. But if anyone else is interested, various models exist. These include:

• Featured Articles, with 28 main categories,
• Featured Lists, about 15 cats
• Library of Congress Classification system, with 21 cats,

Knowledge Organization and Categorization Resources

In thinking about categorization options, at some point, I hope some of us have time to review references and projects on knowledge organization. (Time, where is the time?) If any of you are trained in any of the following areas or work in them, please speak up! (At some point, it could be helpful to dive in and co-revise Categorization, Library classification or related articles -- to get our group process engaged in cogitating about types of good categorization practices.)

I compiled some possibly relevant Wikipedia links below. Perhaps some of the concepts, methods and models in the areas below may be helpful. Feel free to add more links. --Vir 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Articles on Knowledge Organization

• Categorization
• Colon classification
• Encyclopedia -- see especially "see also" and "external links"
• Lexicography
• Library classification (key)
• Knowledge management
• Knowledge representation
• Semantic Web
• Universal Decimal Classification

Wikipedia Categories about Knowledge Organization

(can't create active links here)

• Category:Knowledge representation
• Category:Classification systems
• Category:Library and information science
• Category:Semantic web

Wikipedia Projects on Categorization

• Guideline: Wikipedia:Categorization
• Project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories
• Project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/Current subprojects

Types of Classification

This is crunch time for me. I think this next bit is worth pointing out. -- Vir 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote the Library classification article:

"There are three main types of classification systems:

• enumerative: produce an alphabetical list of subject headings, assign numbers to each heading in alphabetical order
• hierarchical: divides subjects hierarchically, from most general to most specific
• faceted or analytico-synthetic: divides subjects into mutually exclusive orthogonal facets

"The most common classification systems, LC and DDC, are essentially enumerative, though with some hierarchical and faceted elements, especially at the broadest and most general level. The first true faceted system was the Colon classification of S. R. Ranganathan."

Note: I think other types of classification systems would be interesting to consider. For instance, a system that notes main emergent qualities of the universe: space-time, matter-energy, life, etc. is an interesting basic level of organization. One idea I think is worth considering is for a group or wikiproject process to design for awhile, in an ongoing way, a small number of different types of classification/categorization systems that can be recommended as interchangeable top level categories. This group of top categories could all be referenced some how at various top levels of categories sites, with a link provided perhaps to a page with a larger set of classification systems, organized by type. Vir

This probably comes from my background as a chemist, but I think we should pick one top-level scheme we like and try it out. (This is like what we do - you can talk all day, but, often one experiment in the lab can help eliminate a lot of bad ideas and focus the good ones). In practice that means reach consensus here then take our proposal to the main WP1.0 talk page for approval. I think that our efforts in the coming months will have to focus on getting some CDs/DVDs/books made, we will need "all hands on deck." I think we should see how the test release works with our "best choice." After the release would be the time to get a categorisation project active, IMHO. There are a lot of nice ideas here and just above, I want to peruse them when I have more time, and as our release grows I think we will want to offer different views of the information. But for now let's get consensus, then discuss expanding the core topics, and after that work towards the test release. Vir, can you summarise which are the 3-4 options on the table now, after Maurreen's comments and final suggestion, so we can all pick our favourite? Thanks Walkerma 06:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it would be simpler for Vir to just say what flaw he perceives with [current tree]. If there is something specific to address, then we can address it. If not, then I'm not sure any further discussion would be practical. I hope that does not sound harsh. Maurreen 07:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, Martin. [I was posting this as Maureen was posting :)] Things are further along. Above, in Maureen's post "Trees, continued" there is the proposal by Maureen and agreement by Gflores and I that we use the top level categories in the Tree you created, using top level categories I had been working on (from the French Wikipedia) and which I further edited: Core Topics Tree. However, I think there is more room for improvement there. In particular I think we need to revise the "Arts" and "Culture & Society" categories (Culture & Society is too big a category). There are different ways to address this. So, in short, if you agree, I think the decision is made to start working with the top level categories of this Tree. But, I do think we could and should polish it a bit and call for more input to this page, perhaps for another week or two of input, before proposing this structure to the larger 1.0 group.

In terms of future steps, I have a different take on possible developments. I agree with the work gradually approach. However, I think that several experiments can be run concurrently and refined gradually. Further, I think it is helpful to brainstorm about a wide variety of options before settling on which experiments to work with. Expand before narrowing. Rather then wait on doing that, I will be working on this (with others I hope!) gradually in ongoing way as I think developing better category/classification schemes affects top levels of many English Wikipedia projects/pages. There might be some other place that is best to do that work -- some other wikiproject related to classification, as in the links listed above. Not sure where. I do intend to help out here too with whatever comes next here in terms of applying the categories and evaluating articles. --Vir 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Humanities" includes "arts." Saying "Arts & Humanities" is akin to saying "Couches & Furniture". Both combinations are redundant. Maurreen 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps. I see the following as further revising the revised French top level category system to solve the issue of what to do about "culture," a multi-category problem. I also sort of see it as reviving the unfolding collaboration process of narrowing down a choice that was interrupted when we got tired of process and just sort of decided to settle on something (perhaps a bit quickly) a few weeks ago. Vir 22:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is how it is said sometimes. Anway, I had edited the Humanities bit out quickly from the above comment. You caught that fast. What to do with "Culture" now reads: "There are different ways to address this." Anyway, it is late -- but a moment of clarity may be arriving.

So, I am going to contradict myself -- what with the clarity thing and it being late thing. Culture & Humanities are broad categories. Where to locate the relevant components is a problem (which include philosophy and history--part-of-it and language). Here is another option: it is sort of a variation on your variation of 6A above, splitting up humanities. Law and language go to society. Linguistics goes over into social research. Literature stays in arts (it will be clear from use of subcategories). And so forth as things fit. If we want more clarity in categories, there have to be more categories or longer category names. Vir 07:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Vir

Revision of Maureen's revision of 6A above

1. Arts
2. Geography
3. History
4. Philosophy & Religion
5. Society
6. Mathematics
7. Natural Sciences
8. Social Sciences
9. Technology

This is a compromise between the current tree (French top categories) and the English top level. Nine categories. "Everyday life" category is dropped (goes into society). If we want 8 categories, we can drop history and fit it into social sciences (history is part soc sci & part humanity). I think we were headed to something like this as a compromise and as one main option before we became tired of process. So, how about using the above revised 6A categories or an 8 category version of that? Vir 07:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)