ArchWiki page categorization problems.

foxbunny · 2006-11-07 23:53:11

We have some problems categorizing some pages. Since I, foxbunny, didn't like the idea of having pages in more than one category, I would like you all to tell me two things (without resorting to using the notorious poll thing).

1. How do you feel about having one page listed in many categories?

I'll answer this one first. I feel that one page should not belong to more than one category (excluding the "by type" categories). The reason for this is that, although cetain tasks may seem to belong to two or three categories, usually there is one good way of thinking about the given task, and that is the also the category the article should go into.

For example, say we have an article on adding users to the optical group in order to allow ordinary users to play/burn/whatnot CDs and DVDs. This task may belong to [Hardware] category, [Audio/Video], maybe, [Security]... My view is that it should go to the [Security] section, because it is my belief that most users are not quite aware of the security issues surrounding this type of procedures, and this categorization may give them more insight into why they need permissions and security... (but that's me, allright).

2. I'll be listing some articles I don't know where to fit, and I need your opinion.

a. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pla … Ds_as_user ([Security] or [Optical])
b. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Sou … ion_denied ([Security] or [Sound])
c. Pages about AUR ([Arch development], or [Development] under [User's Guide], or [Package management]; this one is especially interesting)
d. AUR Trusted User Guideline ([About Arch], which also covers the Arch community, or [Package management])

Of course, since I'm not the only one working on moving wiki pages (I hope), please add pages to categories you feel are correct.

dtw · 2006-11-07 23:57:20

I don't see why more than one is no good as long as more than one is properly justifiable. You might also consider that if something fits in loads of categories than maybe your categories are still to vague

foxbunny · 2006-11-08 00:05:24

dtw wrote:

I don't see why more than one is no good as long as more than one is properly justifiable. You might also consider that if something fits in loads of categories than maybe your categories are still to vague

Wow, dtw, do you live on this forum (like me?). Haha, quck answer!

Anywayz, the second part of your question rings a bell. Yes, I would rather create new categories than have articles in multiple categories (unless, of course, there is a REALLY good reason for that).

EDIT: Not the mention some quite poorly written articles... And my lack of understanding for some topic... We do need more volunteers.

What do you make of 2nd Q?

elasticdog · 2006-11-08 02:01:01

Well I'd say to make thing intuitive...if a user is having trouble playing cds and doesn't know why, he's not going to immediately think it's a security issue and look there; my guess would be he'd look under a category called Optical, since that's what a cd player is. I personally don't think there would be anything wrong with having them listed under multiple categories, especially considering that not every can be put in to one clear-cut organizational structure (kind of like how Gmail has labels instead of folders). As long as the links are pointing to the same end page, then you don't have any duplication of pages to maintain and I think it would make it easier to find a match without having to sift through all the other categories.

Dusty · 2006-11-08 03:59:34

I think having pages in multiple categories is a good thing. A lot of the time, not knowing what the problem really is, people look in different places first. It should be in the place they look first for everyone. In a map of the wiki, it looks disorganized, but on any one category page, everything should seem relevant. Plus, it makes the wiki look more full.

Dusty

iphitus · 2006-11-08 04:43:07

having them in multiple categories would be a good thing. Not everyone thinks like you do, and so some would seem more logical in another place. There's a few users whose language skills aren't as great and so it will increase their chances of finding things too.

James

foxbunny · 2006-11-08 18:22:23

Okay, I've put them into multiple categories. My original opinion was that the categorization may be a good way to point out why cetain things are done in certain ways.... However, I must agree that that's not going to change many users, thus hurting wiki accessibility.

Thanks for your input, all!

foxbunny · 2006-11-13 16:54:20

How would you categorize this page:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Sub … nd_restore

I have no clue as to what subversions are, and the article offers no hints.

tardo · 2006-11-13 17:05:01

mm, this would fall under system administration, perhaps a new subcategory called backup. If you want to avoid the new subcategory, I'd put it in Network.

foxbunny · 2006-11-13 17:11:21

tardo wrote:

mm, this would fall under system administration, perhaps a new subcategory called backup. If you want to avoid the new subcategory, I'd put it in Network.

What is a subversion anyway? Is it a server, or just another tool?

I've created [English]>>[Uncategorized (English)] page for all pages I failed to properly categorize, so you may take a peek and move anything you find there. Here's a quick link:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Cat … English%29

tardo · 2006-11-13 17:12:31

It's a better version of CVS

foxbunny · 2006-11-13 18:08:10

tardo wrote:

It's a better version of CVS

Then, I suppose it would be categorized as

[Networking]+[Development]+[HOWTOs]

Romashka · 2006-11-13 19:50:49

foxbunny wrote:

tardo wrote:
It's a better version of CVS
Then, I suppose it would be categorized as
[Networking]+[Development]+[HOWTOs]

Then the point of this article is lost - using version control system to backup data.
IMHO this should be in System administration and HOWTOs.

elasticdog · 2006-11-13 21:20:00

If you look at the article, that is not what it is about (albeit it's not a particularly well-written article). It's about how you would backup a full SVN repository to move to another machine or simply have as a backup. Subversion is a version control system that uses a centralized server...the article is how to do a dump of the data on that centralized server in a clean mannor (exactly like <code>mysqldump</code> is used to get the data stored on a mysql server). It's not about how to back up data using Subversion as a backend...

Anyway, I'm not sure what the categorization should be, but it's both development related and system administration related. Hopefully that explanation clears it up a bit for you.

Romashka · 2006-11-13 21:33:41

elasticdog wrote:

If you look at the article, that is not what it is about (albeit it's not a particularly well-written article). It's about how you would backup a full SVN repository to move to another machine or simply have as a backup.

:oops:

foxbunny · 2006-11-13 22:23:39

[Networking] is under [System administration]. But I'm not sure it a network issue. Supposedy, this category was to include the server apps and their configuration.

Dusty · 2006-11-13 22:36:30

Subversion is definately not a networking application. I use it locally all the time and never even run a server. Personally, I use it for software development and also for managing revisions to my thesis (at the moment) and other major documents.

I'd put it in a "software development" category, or else you could have a separate category under "System administration" for "Revision control" This would include pages on subversion, cvs, darcs , GNU Arch (nothing related to Arch Linux), and that other thing people talk about sometimes.

Dusty

foxbunny · 2006-11-13 23:46:08

Dusty wrote:

Subversion is definately not a networking application. I use it locally all the time and never even run a server. Personally, I use it for software development and also for managing revisions to my thesis (at the moment) and other major documents.
I'd put it in a "software development" category, or else you could have a separate category under "System administration" for "Revision control" This would include pages on subversion, cvs, darcs , GNU Arch (nothing related to Arch Linux), and that other thing people talk about sometimes.
Dusty

That explains it. I see cvs and the like in a network context all the time because I never needed to use it myself.

foxbunny · 2006-11-17 17:58:50

"File Alteration Monitor"... from the sound of it, it could go to [Security]. What do you think?

Romashka · 2006-11-17 18:06:16

foxbunny wrote:

"File Alteration Monitor"... from the sound of it, it could go to [Security]. What do you think?

Why security? It's just for making software that supports fam/gamin be aware of file changes. For example new file appers in your filemanager's filelist without the need to manually refresh the list.

foxbunny · 2006-11-20 10:24:17

Romashka wrote:

foxbunny wrote:
"File Alteration Monitor"... from the sound of it, it could go to [Security]. What do you think?
Why security? It's just for making software that supports fam/gamin be aware of file changes. For example new file appers in your filemanager's filelist without the need to manually refresh the list.

Security people often need to monitor file changes, file access dates/times, etc. That's why I thought it could be a security issue. Anyway, do you have any ideas where this particular HOWTO could go?

Romashka · 2006-11-20 10:33:51

foxbunny wrote:

Security people often need to monitor file changes, file access dates/times, etc. That's why I thought it could be a security issue.

Theoretically FAM can be used for this, but contents of "Configuring FAM" page doesn't describe this.

foxbunny wrote:

Anyway, do you have any ideas where this particular HOWTO could go?

Desktop?

BTW, searching for "FAM" doesn't show "Configuring FAM" in our wiki. :?

Arch Linux

#1 2006-11-07 23:53:11

ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#2 2006-11-07 23:57:20

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#3 2006-11-08 00:05:24

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#4 2006-11-08 02:01:01

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#5 2006-11-08 03:59:34

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#6 2006-11-08 04:43:07

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#7 2006-11-08 18:22:23

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#8 2006-11-13 16:54:20

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#9 2006-11-13 17:05:01

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#10 2006-11-13 17:11:21

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#11 2006-11-13 17:12:31

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#12 2006-11-13 18:08:10

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#13 2006-11-13 19:50:49

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#14 2006-11-13 21:20:00

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#15 2006-11-13 21:33:41

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#16 2006-11-13 22:23:39

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#17 2006-11-13 22:36:30

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#18 2006-11-13 23:46:08

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#19 2006-11-17 17:58:50

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#20 2006-11-17 18:06:16

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#21 2006-11-20 10:24:17

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

#22 2006-11-20 10:33:51

Re: ArchWiki page categorization problems.

Board footer