(is this everything and is everything here related to composting?) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm not really sure whether all these things fit neatly together, though and maybe there needs to be more of a search of appropedia to find other pages that could be relevant. Also wondering how we decide when things are actually composting and when they're only tangentially related - is anaerobic digestion part of composting or not? Or perhaps the question is more about whether someone who came here to look at pages on composting would be interested in pages on anaerobic digestion, feces etc. I can imagine they might, but maybe they need to be better curated than what we currently have. Thoughts? [[User:Joeturner|Joeturner]] 14:06, 7 February 2013 (PST) | I'm not really sure whether all these things fit neatly together, though and maybe there needs to be more of a search of appropedia to find other pages that could be relevant. Also wondering how we decide when things are actually composting and when they're only tangentially related - is anaerobic digestion part of composting or not? Or perhaps the question is more about whether someone who came here to look at pages on composting would be interested in pages on anaerobic digestion, feces etc. I can imagine they might, but maybe they need to be better curated than what we currently have. Thoughts? [[User:Joeturner|Joeturner]] 14:06, 7 February 2013 (PST) | ||
:As we roll out [[A:Semantic MediaWiki]], that ''may'' change how we handle this, as it would let us list each kind of page within the one category - a bit like [[Portal:Medical Devices]]. That will take a fair bit of work, but it may be the long term direction. However, if there are enough pages to warrant a subcategory already, that's probably not a bad move. (Btw, if so desired, I can take a list of wikilinks and add a category (or anything else) to each one, using my bot.) | |||
:The decisions on category structure are often tricky... is aerobic digestion also part of composting? Or is composting a subcategory of both anaerobic digestion and aerobic decomposition? We just do our best for now and generally it becomes clearer over time :-). As long as they're sorted into categories that make some kind of sense, that makes it easier to adjust the schema later on. --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 22:30, 10 February 2013 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 06:30, 11 February 2013
Quite a nice collection of pages here, though they are clearly of two kinds: case studies and descriptions of different kinds/types of composting - is there any point in having those as subcategories?.
I'm not really sure whether all these things fit neatly together, though and maybe there needs to be more of a search of appropedia to find other pages that could be relevant. Also wondering how we decide when things are actually composting and when they're only tangentially related - is anaerobic digestion part of composting or not? Or perhaps the question is more about whether someone who came here to look at pages on composting would be interested in pages on anaerobic digestion, feces etc. I can imagine they might, but maybe they need to be better curated than what we currently have. Thoughts? Joeturner 14:06, 7 February 2013 (PST)
- As we roll out A:Semantic MediaWiki, that may change how we handle this, as it would let us list each kind of page within the one category - a bit like Portal:Medical Devices. That will take a fair bit of work, but it may be the long term direction. However, if there are enough pages to warrant a subcategory already, that's probably not a bad move. (Btw, if so desired, I can take a list of wikilinks and add a category (or anything else) to each one, using my bot.)
- The decisions on category structure are often tricky... is aerobic digestion also part of composting? Or is composting a subcategory of both anaerobic digestion and aerobic decomposition? We just do our best for now and generally it becomes clearer over time :-). As long as they're sorted into categories that make some kind of sense, that makes it easier to adjust the schema later on. --Chriswaterguy 22:30, 10 February 2013 (PST)