Thread:Oioiaussie/@comment-5222017-20120821010552/@comment-5222017-20120823002243

Hi Helena,

we run the risk of over categorising


 * 1) What does that mean, exactly? It seems to me that this is a purely academic argument.
 * 2) You’re still not answering my question of how anybody is hurt by one additional entry in the categories box. (Actually, since you now introduced (In)Active categories, it wouldn’t even be an additional entry, just one with different wording, but — as I will try to explain below — vastly more useful.)

Now, no-one is looking to destroy your work. Great! So were you making a mistake when you did destroy my work? Are you going to correct it? Thanks so much! ;-)

I think active/inactive is a good idea, although as I understand it, the concept is dynamic. Here is the difference, in my opinion, between global and tier/biome-specific activity categories:
 * If someone wants to see all active/inactive species, they can simply click on any of the existing overview pages with an overview table, e.g., on Get The Dino You Want and others. It seems to me that global activity categories are somewhat redundant to those tables.
 * Specific categories serve a different purpose, however. Let’s say I have to tier-2 tundra dinos and I want to know if, when fused, they will yield a species I already have – or if I have a chance at a unique dino. By clicking on “Category:Tier2-Air-Active”, I can immediatelt see what's what. Moreover, I can also link to those categories, so I can easily keep track, e.g., on my blog pages, which dinos I might get. That helps develop fusion strategies. (I need to shoot for those tier-0’s to get these tier-1’s, which in turn give me a chance at certain tier-2’s, which I need to get the Sloth I’ve been missing.)
 * Global categories are almost useless for that purpose because they don’t show me at all which tiers and biomes the in/active dinos belong to. (The table at Get The Dino You Want works much better for that, with the downside that I can’t link to individual tier/biome combinations.)

I would hope that before structural changes were made to the wiki, our members could bring their ideas to the admins for discussion.
 * I think — and this is common practice at Wikipedia and most other community-driven — that adding non-vandalism content is generally encouraged, even without prior consensus building.
 * Deleting non-trivial, non-vandalism content without discussion is generally not excepted, however. Being an admin doesn’t change that.

In any case, I’d argue that adding one new type of category entry to one type of pages is not a “structural change”, whatever that means.

However, if an admin makes a decision, in this case, that the categorisation is too specific, I would hope that this can be accepted. Again, Wikipedia and similar wikis don’t operate like that.

If you reserve the right to delete any non-vandalism editions without any prior discussion, this is no longer be a community-driven media, but something more akin to a dictatorship (by you alone or perhaps with a few other admins.) Please do let me and others know if this is how you will use your admin privileges. Thanks!