Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Categories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there a desired ordering to this? Are these in the order you'd want categories to be listed in the classification table category column? Do any of these have articles with identical names? Should this be table-ized? ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- They're in the sort order as currently formatted, from top to bottom each time. Yes, there will be lots of duplicate entries, e.g. between Beatles songs and singles. Tablei-ised? I don't think so, it's just a list :) --kingboyk 14:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- hey, I like tables. If we have people take these under their wing like watchlisting articles, and if we track if there are articles that match the category (that was what I meant, NOT whether an article is in more than one category, I catch that and deal with it, see my sandbox) or not, tablelizing may be a good idea... I may do it if I need to. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I made a list of categories because you asked me to :-) Had no plans beyond that, and I think we could probably do without making more work for ourselves when we have plenty to be going with? But, at the end of the day, do what you like with it (make whatever use of it you will); the flat list will be in the page history until Wikipedia/earth explodes so it's not as if you'd be undoing what I've done :) --kingboyk 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry in advance if this sounds like whinging (since you did the work after all, not me!!!!) but as it stands, I have to parse it anyway instead of using it as is, because what I needed is just the names and nothing else (no Category: on the front and no comments on the back, just the names as baretext)... so maybe it makes more sense to have it in a table which carries more info. I'm all about not making more work for myself which is why I started coding this darn thing in the first place but it's one of those "labor saving devices" that maybe is taking more labo(u)r than it saves! ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you have sed and mastery thereof? Leave it with me! --kingboyk 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not unless I fire up cygwin, as this is a wintel box. But perl can do it I guess. Anyway I've just table-ized it with the extra column I want (whether the category has/hasn't an article that has the exact same name) although I need to see if I can fill the table out cleverly (that is, without going schlepping around and checking by hand. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't you have sed and mastery thereof? Leave it with me! --kingboyk 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry in advance if this sounds like whinging (since you did the work after all, not me!!!!) but as it stands, I have to parse it anyway instead of using it as is, because what I needed is just the names and nothing else (no Category: on the front and no comments on the back, just the names as baretext)... so maybe it makes more sense to have it in a table which carries more info. I'm all about not making more work for myself which is why I started coding this darn thing in the first place but it's one of those "labor saving devices" that maybe is taking more labo(u)r than it saves! ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I made a list of categories because you asked me to :-) Had no plans beyond that, and I think we could probably do without making more work for ourselves when we have plenty to be going with? But, at the end of the day, do what you like with it (make whatever use of it you will); the flat list will be in the page history until Wikipedia/earth explodes so it's not as if you'd be undoing what I've done :) --kingboyk 14:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- hey, I like tables. If we have people take these under their wing like watchlisting articles, and if we track if there are articles that match the category (that was what I meant, NOT whether an article is in more than one category, I catch that and deal with it, see my sandbox) or not, tablelizing may be a good idea... I may do it if I need to. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorisation
see my comment at Category talk:The Beatles. Stevage 08:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recorders vs writers
The situation where "The Beatles songs" means "songs recorded by The Beatles" whereas "George Harrison songs" means "songs written by George Harrison" isn't very satisfactory. I was going to be bold and move all the categories around, but thought better of it ;)
Something like this might be ideal:
- The Beatles songs - songs recorded/released by "The Beatles" (excluding covers)
- The Beatles covers
- Songs by George Harrison (can co-exist with:...) (or maybe "Songs written by George Harrison"?)
- Songs by Lennon-McCartney
- Songs by Ringo Starr
- Songs by Paul McCartney (including solo stuff)
- Songs by John Lennon
Let It Be (song) would be thus "Songs by The Beatles" and "Songs by Lennon-McCartney", whereas Any Road would just be "Songs by George Harrison".
There would still be a couple of off ones, like songs written by all four: probably better to use the individual PMcC and JL rather than "Lennon-McCartney" ones in that case.
Thoughts? Stevage 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest asking at the main Project talk page, might not get many takers here. As for my 2c, I'm not sure right now :) --kingboyk 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
