| Revision as of 04:36, 12 February 2006 editAaron Walden (talk | contribs)2,123 edits →Categories← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:42, 12 February 2006 edit undoPschemp (talk | contribs)Administrators20,818 edits →CategoriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::Yeah, no kidding. There's a lot of them. Wouldn't it work to just list the top categories, since the sub-categories are listed within each, anyway? --] 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | ::Yeah, no kidding. There's a lot of them. Wouldn't it work to just list the top categories, since the sub-categories are listed within each, anyway? --] 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Unfortunatley no because the category structure is not a strict tree, i.e. not all sub cats are under the same cat, some aren't even under the right cat or may be under something totally unrelated. Like until I edited it tonight, ] wasn't a sub cat of ]. The cat system is too messy to trust it that way. It would be easier if it were better organized, but it isn't. Maybe we need a separate ] or something if the list gets giant. | |||
| ==Scope== | ==Scope== | ||
Revision as of 04:42, 12 February 2006
Categories
On the list of categories, would it be better if we were to alphabetize them as we go along? --Aaron Walden 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great idea Aaron - be bold and rearrange them ;) I would only recommend to leave the project cat on top, as it will surely be our main working reference. Great work on the userbox, btw! Phædriel ♥ - 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- We need to think about reorganizing and pruning the categories. I'm finding a lot of categories to add to the list. Most the categories have sub-categories, which have sub-sub-categories. I've found sixteen categories to add to the list tonight, and I'm still only reached the (now) 12th on the list. -- Dalbury 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, no kidding. There's a lot of them. Wouldn't it work to just list the top categories, since the sub-categories are listed within each, anyway? --Aaron Walden 04:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunatley no because the category structure is not a strict tree, i.e. not all sub cats are under the same cat, some aren't even under the right cat or may be under something totally unrelated. Like until I edited it tonight, Category:indigenous peoples of Mexico wasn't a sub cat of Category:Indigenous peoples of North America. The cat system is too messy to trust it that way. It would be easier if it were better organized, but it isn't. Maybe we need a separate WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Categories or something if the list gets giant.
Scope
Can we include Indians of Mexico too? They have no category and most of their articles are stubs (except Aztec). Needs a lot of work. I have some books on Mexican Indians in Spanish, so if the language is a barrier, maybe you could send those projects my way?--Rockero420 21:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- As long as we have users with expertise in the subject, like you seem to do, Rockero, I think the idea is great. Please, feel free to add the proper template to each article's Talk Page in order to identify them. As the project has just begun, the first step is to identify all artciles under its scope, and list them at the project page as soon as we have categorized them. I'll remake the templates in order to include Indigenous peoples of Mexico asap. Thank you for your cooperation, and welcome! Phædriel ♥ - 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
scope 2: prehistory?
hi.
question: how about including prehistory? (unless your meaning of "historic" includes prehistory as well). i note that the coverage of American archaeology is a rather weak point of Misplaced Pages.
peace – ishwar (speak) 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, dear Ish - in fact, now that we're going through the categorizing stages (an absolute must imho, in order to identify as many related articles as possible), I've already tagged a few artciles that fall into that period of time. Please, go ahead and include any others you see fit. Cheers! Phædriel ♥ - 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Inuit/Eskimo
The Inuit and other Eskimo-Aleut speaking peoples should also be included. What do you think? Also, it might be useful to invite the numerous people who have contributed to aboriginal-related articles. Luigizanasi 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Definetely, Luigi - in fact, I just went into a categorizing spree and tagged as many articles related to that group as I could. Again, I encourage you to seek any others you deem appropriate and tag them at their Talk Pages as well with the {{NorthAmNative}} template. I also created an invitation template to let as many interested users as possible know of the existence of this project; you can add it at their Talk Pages with {{NANWP}}. Welcome aboard, and happy editing! Phædriel ♥ - 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then the Wikiproject notification template should change to include them explicitly. They do not consider themselves First Nations, and would be insulted by the term. I would like to suggest the wording "Native American, First Nations, Inuit and Alaska Native". I would do it, but I fear I will probably screw it up. Luigizanasi 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good, point, Luigi - I'm on it! Phædriel ♥ - 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Then the Wikiproject notification template should change to include them explicitly. They do not consider themselves First Nations, and would be insulted by the term. I would like to suggest the wording "Native American, First Nations, Inuit and Alaska Native". I would do it, but I fear I will probably screw it up. Luigizanasi 07:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)