Jump to content

User talk:Dfletter/Categorisation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, welcome from me too. Thanks for helping out with the categorisation of the computer science articles. I'm afraid I don't agree with some of the changes you made and I will revert/modify some. For example the fourth-generation programming language doesn't belong in Category:Software as that is a dumping ground for all the article that are on real programs. Category:Programming or Category:Programming languages would be a better place. The same goes for Hamming number. It isn't really an algorith and would therefore be better left in Category:Computer science until a more appropriate category is found/created.

Also the Category:Theory of Computation is wrongly capitalised and redundant with some of the other categories in Category:Theoretical computer science. Also articles an article such as Petri nets would most likely belong in a more specific category such as Category:Concurrent computation. (I made the exact mistake and some more when I was just new here, so don't worry). If you have any questions of comments just leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, —user:R.Koot 00:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed you are planning to use the ACM categorization scheme, which (in my opinion) would be a bad idea and which should probably be discussed with some other Wikipedians first. Cheers, —R. Koot 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Unlike the physics and mathematics communities, the computer sciencec community is virtually non-existant on Wikipedia. Before you joined I was the only person messing around with categorisation, so I suggest we make a plan first, to avoid destroying eachother's work. I have created a page at User:R.Koot/Categorisation scheme (computer science). I don't mind basing the scheme on the ACM scheme, but a direct implementation would be impossible. There are several reason for this such as naming conflicts and redundancies with existing categories. More importantly though, is the fact that the ACM scheme is too idealized for Wikipedia. For example, we have all those meta-categories such as computer scientists and computer science literature, but their would also be some conflicts with the well established categorisation of the mathematics articles. (By the way, I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany). —R. Koot 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I moved your comment to the talk page. The ACM mapping was meant for comparission, suggest we create some rough sketch first. Believe me, this is not something that should be rushed. My interests lie in theoretical computer science so I'll be a bit sensitive about that. —R. Koot 17:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Category:Theory of computation is redundant. We already have Category:Computation and Category:Complexity theory. Might I suggest, that you browse around a bit first to you know what is already there? —R. Koot 17:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC) [edit] Category:Programming techniques is redundant with Category:Programming paradigms. Logic programming and n-th generationg programming language should go there as well, as Category:Programming and Category:Programming languages are just black holes at the moment. —R. Koot 19:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Software and some advice Everybody who creates an article on application X will categorize is under Category:Software. Trying to make this category about something else is a lost cause. It is sort of an unwritten rule that if the name of a category is a simple noun, the articles in it will be a <insert noun> and not articles about <insert noun>. Another unwritten rule is that if you don't know where to put an article you put it in the most general category, eventually someone will come along who knows where to put it. Don't take this wrong, but I really, really, really think it would be best if you would start your life on Wikipedia a bit more slowly. You really need to know a bit more of how everything works around here, before you start on such a big task as throwing around the entier categorisation system, as I already had to cleanup some almost catastrophic changes made by you. I suggest you just start lurking around a bit first, edit some articles, get to know some people, learn the unwirtten rules. —R. Koot 20:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dfletter"

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dfletter/Categorisation&oldid=29507956"