This section was from Category talk:Groups by country
Have the country-specific categories' headers become obsolete?
This is really regarding the sub-categories of this category, but I thought it would make more sense to put it here: The text in each of them (except the USA-one) currently says: This category contains everything that caters specifically to the [country's] furry community; however, this statement doesn't seem to suit that well anymore, as they now contain articles of subjects that simply originated in (or otherwise belong to) that country - not all of them necessarily in particular interest to the country's furry community... which, of course, is by no means a bad thing; I agree that broader is for the better, but I certainly didn't think of that back when I first wrote the initial headers :p
So, as I see it, they should be changed to reflect this. What I wonder now is, what would be a more fitting text? It'd be nice to know that beforehand (and stated here for future reference), so that we can keep them all uniform. --MKerris 13:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I almost totally forgot about the convenience that is templates ;)
- What if we made one to say something like this: This category contains everything that is based in (or otherwise has relations to) the country of [country name] - as for the country's name, this could just be input as a variable of the template. If possible, this could also be automatically linked to the country's article located at Wikipedia. For the US, one could simply make another template, replacing the "the country of [country name]"-part with "the state of [state name], [[wikipedia:United States|USA]]". I'll try to make one of them soon - let's see how that works out (if at all, that is). --MKerris 18:26, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
How to handle USA furries
There are too many for a single category "USA", so I suggest to make separate categories by state. Problem: Not of all it is known in which state they reside. Also, it's a lot of work to sort several hundred individuals into fifty categories. I had the idea of sorting individuals into the regional categories; it seems logical and a good way to find each other. Unci 14:02, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Like the West Coast, New England and such? I support that idea =) --MKerris 15:57, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the list for each category should be one screen full at most. I leave it to the Americans to find the best way to divide up their country. It is my impression that California has a great number of furries. - Unci 17:28, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The way this currently is: if we have a state for them, we put them into the state, and if we don't we put them into the country. This cuts down on the numbers of furs in any one category. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because I like consistency, I think there should be a general guide to categorization that you should place an article as deep into subcategory levels as can be ascertained about the article's subject, but not duplicated at direct line higher levels. Maybe a specific help page might be useful to uncomplicate it ... I did add a note to Help:Editing but given its bulleted nature, it might be too long. --Chibiabos 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Continents and a different category name
Earlier this month there was some mention at Talk:List of furry LiveJournal communities of putting countries into continent categories. I think this would be worth doing (I know I for one expect categories to be in larger continent categories).
While we're at it, we could rename this category to something more general, as we use the country categories for everything related, which is far more than groups. Perhaps simply Category:Geography? -- Sine 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess this has been done. It would have helped to change the links to this category as well. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)