Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Category hierarchy

Category names

Why bother with using the naming style "Europe (rivers)" when you can simply say "European rivers"? With the former style you also have the option of "Rivers (Europe)" which is equally valid. But with the latter style "European rivers" is unambiguous and stands alone. If you had as many people working on this project as work on Wikipedia you would probably end up in an argument with someone about whether "Europe (rivers)" or "Rivers (Europe)" is the better choice. Also, I would expect to see "European rivers" (or whatever it is named) as a subcategory of both "Europe" and "Rivers". —Mike 18:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I did it this was was because I wanted to basically have a single category (Europe) that would also branch off into several subcats (Europe (rivers); Europe (individuals); Europe (cities)) that would have a logical and systematic relationship. Essentially thinking out loud in the preliminary organization to see what could be there. Certainly it could be like this list (European rivers; European individuals; European cities). I don't want to delve into the ugly issues of American vs. USAian NPOV fights I have seen. Also, what about countries like United Provinces? United Provincians? Dutch? Or more to the point, I didn't want to have to think of the term for the name of the people from each country, although it isn't usually that hard to derive. The exceptions that are difficult to work with can be exceptions anyway, so it really doesn't matter. Indian vs. Native American vs. Indiginous North American People is yet another huge headache I'd like to avoid if possible, although that one may be very difficult to avoid with the nature of the POV issues in this encyclopedia.

Keep in mind that nothing has been decided upon in regards to the content on this page at all. This is just a suggestion, but one that I may implement if there are no objections. --Robert Horning 05:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point...the category could be "Rivers of Europe" to avoid causing a fuss. I just think it looks better to avoid the parenthesis unless disambiguating. —Mike 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am very concerned that we should be doing this categorisation at all, as a comprehensive catagorical index already exists in Vol 29 of the EB. Now we have access to these pages for download, it strikes me it would be far simpler to have these pages on Wikisource and Wikify the indvidual entries which will give an automatic cross reference to the articles. This is not the main index which occupies several hundred pages, but the one at the back of the volume before the list of contributors. Its a task I am proposing to start once I have uploaded the list of contributors. Apwoolrich 21:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am about to post the Classifed Table of Contents, which is the heirarchy originally designed for the EB1911. I urge the the proposed one is going to cause more problems than it is worth and that the proposed one is not used. Apwoolrich 17:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit of a mess

I gather the "new" hierarchy was never implemented. Can we remove it? The "old" one is all a bit haphazard, but hey-oh I doubt anyone wants to implement a new one. --Inops (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)