Uiser collogue:Sije
Please leave me messages in English only, if possible. --Sije (tauk) 06:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited!
[eedit soorce]
  | |
|---|---|
|
The Celtic Knot: Wikipedia Language Conference - Programme now live.
| |
Stinglehammer (tauk) 23:54, 16 Mey 2017 (UTC)
Category RFC
[eedit soorce]I just wantit tae invite ye tae discuss things at Category collogue:Wikipaedia categorisation. :D –MJL ‐Tauk‐☖ 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, my work here on Scots Wikipaedia involves takin exeesting "red" categories an "colourin them blue". However sometimes this involves creatin new "red" categories, but I can try tae reduce that as much as possible, if that's what ye want. Regards an best wishes, --Sije (tauk) 18:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- [Thank you for the ping!] Woops!! I totally didn't read your userpage: "Please leave me messages in English only, if possible." We can just speak in English. Basically, my goal is not so much to prevent the creation of new categories, but just getting into the habit of sorting things into broader ones overall. For example, in this edit I removed Category:Sportsfowk frae Bristol (too specific and a redlink) but added Category:Fowk frae Bristol (more broad and should ideally be filled since we have a number of articles-- now done). The logic behind this is to stop trying to mimic the category system of English Wikipedia as much. The reason they have those super specific categories is because they just have a lot of pages and need to split up categories with a ton of subcategories. Since this clearly is not the case for Scowiki (we have 54,749 to enwiki to their 48,528,079), we shouldn't really be using their system as it wasn't designed with that in mind. Instead of "19th century female film actors from Edinburgh" (that doesn't exist on enwiki but for the sake of explaining) we should realistically have instead: "19th century actors," "film actors," "female actors," "People from Edinburgh," "Scottish women," and "Scottish actors." The simpler and broader the categories; the better. If they become too crowded, then we can revaluate from there (for example, "film actors" might end up getting full of a lot of Scottish people because this is Scots wiki, so we might need to create "Scottish film actors" or maybe "British film actors" if we don't have enough Scottish people.
Either way, you still are able to disagree with all that; then I am certainly not going to stop you (in fact, I'd be willing to change my own style of editing to comply with yours if that's the result of the discussion). I just would prefer we all pick one system for categories we think works best for us and all stick to it (hence why I created the RFC). Kindest regards, –MJL ‐Tauk‐☖ 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)- OK. Thanks for the explanation. What you say makes sense to me. --Sije (tauk) 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- [Thank you for the ping!] Woops!! I totally didn't read your userpage: "Please leave me messages in English only, if possible." We can just speak in English. Basically, my goal is not so much to prevent the creation of new categories, but just getting into the habit of sorting things into broader ones overall. For example, in this edit I removed Category:Sportsfowk frae Bristol (too specific and a redlink) but added Category:Fowk frae Bristol (more broad and should ideally be filled since we have a number of articles-- now done). The logic behind this is to stop trying to mimic the category system of English Wikipedia as much. The reason they have those super specific categories is because they just have a lot of pages and need to split up categories with a ton of subcategories. Since this clearly is not the case for Scowiki (we have 54,749 to enwiki to their 48,528,079), we shouldn't really be using their system as it wasn't designed with that in mind. Instead of "19th century female film actors from Edinburgh" (that doesn't exist on enwiki but for the sake of explaining) we should realistically have instead: "19th century actors," "film actors," "female actors," "People from Edinburgh," "Scottish women," and "Scottish actors." The simpler and broader the categories; the better. If they become too crowded, then we can revaluate from there (for example, "film actors" might end up getting full of a lot of Scottish people because this is Scots wiki, so we might need to create "Scottish film actors" or maybe "British film actors" if we don't have enough Scottish people.
+autopatroller
[eedit soorce]Hey Sije!
Thanks for doing great work with categories and stuff. Just as a heads-up, I'm giving you the autopatroller user right because I trust you will continue making high quality contributions. This way, I won't have to review any future new pages you create.
Thank you again! :D –MJL ‐Tauk‐☖ 07:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, --Sije (tauk) 18:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Aurie
[eedit soorce]Don't use "aurie". Use "area" or "airt". I realise ye didn't create category:Auries o computer science, but still, 99/100 time ye're going to misuse the wiod CiphriusKane (tauk) 09:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, "grafie" should be avoided as well. It's either "graphie" or "graphy" CiphriusKane (tauk) 10:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I'll try to remember. I usually don't make these decisions on my own. Rather, I see if there are any "red" links (to non-existent categories that have already been added to pages), and I "colour" them blue. Sije (tauk) 01:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Filosofie
[eedit soorce]"Filosofie", "filosofical" etc are bad spellings. They share their spellings with the English, such as "Philosophy" (see this article for proof that it's a ph spelling) CiphriusKane (tauk) 04:40, 21 Apryle 2021 (UTC)