Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Categorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved.

• I will be using this space as a temporary sandbox to develop the scheme I've got in my head. From what I can see so far it will be borrowing heavily from the ideas on the previous page here, as well as discussion on the main page, (Brz7 & lquilter chiefly).Oldsoul 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I've got the main elements of my concept here. The idea is that each one of these categories (and all their sub-categories) has cross categorization with the other. I.e. Professional Organizations would have National Professional Organizations, Regional Professional Organizations and Local Professional Organizations underneath it. To the same effect each of the geographic categories, would have sectors at each level as well.

i.e. Local Recreation Organizations, Local Health Organizations, Local Cultural Organizations et cetera... That is my whole concept. It certainly will be complicated given the myriad sub-categories in both sectors and geography, but with this general system established, we can move forawrd and actually start implementing these from the 'top-down' and 'bottom up'. If kinks come up we can deal with them as they arise. Oldsoul 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

Hi. You have the "Sexual organizations" sandwiched between the "Religious organizations" and the "Youth organizations". That strikes me as a little incongruous. Also, where are you planning to place organizations such as PFLAG and the Human Rights Campaign? I think you will receive more than a little anger if they are filed under "Sexual organizations". PFLAG, for example, is for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Certainly sexuality is probably discussed, but I seriously doubt that sexual activities take place at their support group meetings. Likewise, HRC is an organization that promotes equal marriage rights for all people (most notably gays and lesbians), but it certainly is not a sexual organization

To me, a sexual organization would be related to escort services, adult bookstores, prostitution, and other adult entertainment companies, some of which are somewhat unlikely to have many articles here at Wikipedia (due to notability and lack of reliable sources, though the porn industry is likely to be well represented). In short, sexual organization refers to sexual acts and organizations that address that topic. That may be what you intended, but it may not.

HRC should fall under the human rights organizations heading, or a broader charitable organizations (or possibly charitable or non-profit organization, or something that appeases the various designations that organizations under which organizations are classified in different jurisdictions of the world, which "non-profit" alone likely does not). Likewise, PFLAG would more likely be placed under a youth organizations heading, but that would be awkward, since it is for the parents and friends (of any age) of the youth as well. In fact, there may be parents without youths. PFLAG would fall under the charitable organizations category, too.

Maybe these should fall under civic organizations, though I would typically place organizations like Rotary International, the Lions Club, IOOF, and the Masons under that heading instead of the potentially more political ones I mentioned (HRC, PFLAG, etc.).

I think it is a good start, but when it gets into the cultural areas, you need to be careful not to stigmatize or factionalize the people who get lumped into the category, too (i.e., everyone associated with the organization).

I'm also worried that it is a little one-dimensional, unless you are talking about placing the organizations in multiple categories. For example, would you place the YMCA under youth organizations, religious organizations, sports and recreation organizations, senior organizations, civic organizations, or something else? It certainly is involved in all of those various activities. If you can't cross-categorize, then this whole thing seems rather arbitrary. Your opinion of where to classify the YMCA in a single category is unlikely to match my idea. The scheme has to be flexible enough that YMCA should be able to be classified under most, if not all, of the categories I just mentioned. Otherwise, the people looking for these organizations (who are the people that should be the primary focus of this WikiProject) will not be able to locate for whatever they are looking much of the time. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willscrlt. Thanks for your in-depth feedback. For clarity, Sexual organizations was meant for sexual rights or advocacy, certainly not brothels, prostitution or adult entertainment companies and the like. This page is a temporary sandbox for the upper-tier's of this categorization scheme, and certainly I think your ideas and comments regarding civic and cultural organizations hold lots of merit. Go ahead and move, add, or tweak sub-categories here - as long as they don't change the overall scheme.

Also, this whole project intends to cross-categorize both up and down the 4 main divisions, and in between them at all levels as well. If you're interested in focusing on the cultural organizations in this scheme, we could name you as a coordinator? Looking forward to collaborating with you. Oldsoul 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)