Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sartakh"
imported>Thomcat (→Categorization Scheme) |
imported>Thomcat m |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I see you have done Hawaii and parts of California. I've edited Washington, Idaho, and Montana to match the new scheme as I understand it (state or states, active or inactive). | I see you have done Hawaii and parts of California. I've edited Washington, Idaho, and Montana to match the new scheme as I understand it (state or states, active or inactive). | ||
| − | Finally, not sure about the "National Park" category. Many graticules will contain one, but I presume you are targetting those in which the majority is parkland. Either way, I'm pretty sure the [[Olympic National Park|Olympic National Forest]] will qualify. | + | Finally, not sure about the "National Park" category. Many graticules will contain one, but I presume you are targetting those in which the majority is parkland. Either way, I'm pretty sure the [[Olympic National Park, Washington|Olympic National Forest]] will qualify. |
--[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
------- | ------- | ||
Sartakh, I moved the discussion from my user page to [[:Category_talk:North_America]] | Sartakh, I moved the discussion from my user page to [[:Category_talk:North_America]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 3 July 2008
Categorization Scheme
Either heirarchy of (NA, US, state) is fine with me. The majority of pages had only NA, state, then a few others had US (instead of or added to NA), so I made them all the same (usually while doing other work).
In hindsight, I agree that your proposal (each has US, state) would clean up the North America category considerably, and a similar thing could be done with Canadian provinces. Clean up would involve replacing NA with US on over 100 pages at this point, though. If you're still game, then I'll pitch in also. --Thomcat 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on some states tonight. A similar thing could be done in Europe, which I am only about 15% through my task of categorizing Active/Inactive.
Oceania might solve some of the problems of the New Zealanders and Australians have with being lumped as "Australasia" or the like. --Thomcat 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Shared cities/countries might not be a huge deal, as the city and country are listed. If a particular group really wishes to disavow the existence of another neighboring group, they will probably have to create a separate graticule. The main graticule page could then be a redirect (did you mean "these guys" or "those guys"?)
I see you have done Hawaii and parts of California. I've edited Washington, Idaho, and Montana to match the new scheme as I understand it (state or states, active or inactive).
Finally, not sure about the "National Park" category. Many graticules will contain one, but I presume you are targetting those in which the majority is parkland. Either way, I'm pretty sure the Olympic National Forest will qualify. --Thomcat 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sartakh, I moved the discussion from my user page to Category_talk:North_America
