Difference between revisions of "User talk:Malkom1366"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Well, how about these ideas: [[Category:Portland Area Sites]], [[Category:Oregon Sites]], [[Category:Rivers Region Sites]], [[Category:Tir Righ Sites]]. How specific do you think it should get? In terms of indexing, it would be best to be as specific as possible, but there are others who get irritable about over-categorization. (Not that I know why; it's not like it hurts them and they aren't obliged to use them.)'' | + | ''Well, how about these ideas: <nowiki>[[Category:Portland Area Sites]], [[Category:Oregon Sites]], [[Category:Rivers Region Sites]], [[Category:Tir Righ Sites]]</nowiki>. How specific do you think it should get? In terms of indexing, it would be best to be as specific as possible, but there are others who get irritable about over-categorization. (Not that I know why; it's not like it hurts them and they aren't obliged to use them.)'' |
That's a good idea. Could even have overlapping ones that way so people can start with a small area search and if nothing works go larger. So say something in Portland could be in all three that you listed. Could go with the basic regions in the regions category, then add others that seem reasonable. --[[User:Phelan Tolusmidr|Phelan Tolusmidr]] 19:00, 23 Jan 2009 (PST) | That's a good idea. Could even have overlapping ones that way so people can start with a small area search and if nothing works go larger. So say something in Portland could be in all three that you listed. Could go with the basic regions in the regions category, then add others that seem reasonable. --[[User:Phelan Tolusmidr|Phelan Tolusmidr]] 19:00, 23 Jan 2009 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 03:01, 24 January 2009
Well, how about these ideas: [[Category:Portland Area Sites]], [[Category:Oregon Sites]], [[Category:Rivers Region Sites]], [[Category:Tir Righ Sites]]. How specific do you think it should get? In terms of indexing, it would be best to be as specific as possible, but there are others who get irritable about over-categorization. (Not that I know why; it's not like it hurts them and they aren't obliged to use them.)
That's a good idea. Could even have overlapping ones that way so people can start with a small area search and if nothing works go larger. So say something in Portland could be in all three that you listed. Could go with the basic regions in the regions category, then add others that seem reasonable. --Phelan Tolusmidr 19:00, 23 Jan 2009 (PST)