Not all pages are categorized
I've recently noticed that sub pages for walkthroughs are not categorized and I'm thinking this should change. Maybe it's because I'm used to Wikipedia where it's policy that every page has to be categorized. But there is a practical purpose to this as it does make using MWiki-Browser much much easier. What I am think is that all pages for a game should go into a category for that specific game and that category could be categorized under a new top level category like "Walkthrough" or "Game Guides". I do realize that this is a big project but I'd be willing to do it if there's no objection. --Argash 01:03, 4 January 2007 (CST)
- This has been discussed several times to my knowledge, right at the wiki's conception, and we decided to do it this way. It's less hassle, and MediaWiki already (sort of) categorises sub-pages by their parent page, but putting a little "< parent page" link at the top of each sub-page. --DrBob (Talk) 01:59, 4 January 2007 (CST)
- I understand your desire, and being someone who put a lot of effort into the categorization of this wiki, I really don't think it would be useful. I thought about it, but in reality, categories are only useful for browsing or finding related articles. You can browse guides, then specific pages right now, as opposed to having a second browsing method where you browse guide categories, then browse sub-articles within those guide categories. So browsing wouldn't really be useful. Also, here we have the all game nav template which should include a table of contents, which actually makes finding related articles much easier then using a category (quicker to see, on the same page, each page has an explanation in the TOC, ect.). And, for all aesthetic reasons it would also be bad, categorizing most subpages for most guides would wind up an ugly mess to look at. I can assure you I have personally weighed the goods and the bads here, and unlike wikipedia we have something like cats within guides that is neater (all game nav) so the categorization wouldn't be very useful. Of course, if you did it, it wouldn't really hurt in any way, but I can only hope that you would put that extensive effort you're offering into something more worthwhile. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:51, 18 January 2007 (CST)
's' to 'z'?
I've said it before to other users, if a page is started with one spelling type, it should stay that way, but I think this being a policy page, it should be thought about a little more. It's not really a major issue, I just want to know what others thing. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 09:50, 2 March 2007 (CST)
- I think it should be "s", but I'm English. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 11:24, 2 March 2007 (CST)
- Don't you guys just love the subtleties between British and American English? I'd have to agree with the policy of sticking with what is implemented first, except in the extreme case of words like tyres or gaols. Those words don't just look silly, sometimes they can't even be pronounced! Come on! :P (I'm only kidding...) 01:23, 3 March 2007 (CST)