Forum:Category naming and nesting

It seems now would be a good time (if a little late) to get down a scheme for category naming and nesting (i.e. categories within categories to create trees).

Naming

We need a better scheme than using something like "Allied YR missions". The "YR" by itself is problematic because it puts us in a trouble spot if they come out with another game which might also abbreviate to "YR".

We'll probably be safer if we do do something like "C&C1", "C&C1:CO", "C&C2", "C&C2:FS", "C&C3", "C&C3:KW", "RA1", "RA1:CS", etc..

Instead of "Allied YR missions", we'd have "Allied RA2:YR missions". The -faction- -game- -type- syntax would be the scheme for most categories used by articles.

Note how the type is not pluralized. Here it is not capitalized but we can if we want to, but if we do we must do it for all.

For units/structures I am not sure of the utility of having "Allied RA2:YR units". It would be simpler just to merge expansion-only units into the main game category, like "Allied RA2 units"

Nesting

At the moment we should concentrate on building two parallel category trees, one based on game appearance and one based on major faction association.

Let's take units for example (we can do the same for characters, missions, etc..). The root of the tree is Category:Units and a partial tree looks something like this:


 * Units
 * C&C1 units
 * GDI C&C1 units
 * GDI C&C1 aircraft
 * GDI C&C1 infantry
 * GDI C&C1 vehicles
 * GDI C&C1 ships
 * GDI C&C1 structures
 * Nod C&C1 units
 * more...
 * Other C&C1 units
 * more...
 * C&C2 units
 * more...
 * C&C3 units
 * more...
 * more...

We could append something like:
 * Units
 * sort by games as above and then add...
 * GDI units
 * GDI C&C1 units
 * GDI C&C2 units
 * more...
 * Nod units
 * Nod C&C1 units
 * Nod C&C2 units
 * more...
 * more...

Categories can be placed in multiple categories which make navigation easier.

Having a "Category:GDI units", "Category:Nod units", etc. also gives as something to put in the faction-orientated categories. For example in "Category:GDI" we can automatically add "Category:GDI units" to it like:
 * GDI
 * GDI units
 * more...

Categories should only be children of a minimal number of parents. For example, "Category:GDI C&C2 units" should not be a direct child of "Category:Units", or "Category:GDI", since it is already related through "Category:GDI units".

Thoughts? - Meco (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)