Category talk:Houses: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: * I think it may become prudent to divide this category into decades, and by area (Birmingham houses, Walker County houses, etc). Thoughts --~~~~) |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* I think it may become prudent to divide this category into decades, and by area (Birmingham houses, Walker County houses, etc). Thoughts --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 16:13, 30 December 2013 (PST) | == Subdividing category == | ||
* I think it may become prudent to divide this category into decades, and by area (Birmingham houses, Walker County houses, etc). Thoughts? --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 16:13, 30 December 2013 (PST) | |||
** I agree the category is getting unwieldy, but am uncertain if that's the best approach. Breaking it into decades should, logically, also mean making each of those a sub-category of the buildings decades categories. So "Category:1820s houses" would go under "Category:1820s buildings" (as well as "Category:Houses by decade" or whatever we call it). Are there enough homes of note to worry about decades? Would centuries be good enough or would that make the 19th century section too big? Also, we started down a path of breaking down businesses by location ([[:Category:Businesses by location]]), but we have done poorly at using those categories. Is that a sign that location isn't important or just laziness/forgetfulness on our part? --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] 07:05, 31 December 2013 (PST) | |||
*** It's hard to plan which districts merit categories. One of those things that needs to be fairly fine-grained in Birmingham, but not so much outside the city. Years are just a lot easier to deal with. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 08:02, 31 December 2013 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:02, 31 December 2013
Subdividing category
- I think it may become prudent to divide this category into decades, and by area (Birmingham houses, Walker County houses, etc). Thoughts? --Dystopos 16:13, 30 December 2013 (PST)
- I agree the category is getting unwieldy, but am uncertain if that's the best approach. Breaking it into decades should, logically, also mean making each of those a sub-category of the buildings decades categories. So "Category:1820s houses" would go under "Category:1820s buildings" (as well as "Category:Houses by decade" or whatever we call it). Are there enough homes of note to worry about decades? Would centuries be good enough or would that make the 19th century section too big? Also, we started down a path of breaking down businesses by location (Category:Businesses by location), but we have done poorly at using those categories. Is that a sign that location isn't important or just laziness/forgetfulness on our part? --Lkseitz 07:05, 31 December 2013 (PST)
- It's hard to plan which districts merit categories. One of those things that needs to be fairly fine-grained in Birmingham, but not so much outside the city. Years are just a lot easier to deal with. --Dystopos 08:02, 31 December 2013 (PST)
- I agree the category is getting unwieldy, but am uncertain if that's the best approach. Breaking it into decades should, logically, also mean making each of those a sub-category of the buildings decades categories. So "Category:1820s houses" would go under "Category:1820s buildings" (as well as "Category:Houses by decade" or whatever we call it). Are there enough homes of note to worry about decades? Would centuries be good enough or would that make the 19th century section too big? Also, we started down a path of breaking down businesses by location (Category:Businesses by location), but we have done poorly at using those categories. Is that a sign that location isn't important or just laziness/forgetfulness on our part? --Lkseitz 07:05, 31 December 2013 (PST)