Should this hierarchy be reworked?Edit

Currently, this category contains "Continents," "Countries," and "Geography." Continents and countries are both geographical units. Then in "Geography" we have "Geography-related lists," "Geography by place," and "Political geography" (which I just added because it was orphaned). All three of the latter list places and types of places, and their internal structure is something of a mess as well. I think we need to start over because this structure is beyond repair. Thoughts? --Jesdisciple (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the intent of the World category, and how should that intent change? I think that's the first question. I think it was set up to be a category associated with global issues. Would changing it to 'Category:Global' be more appropriate? Chadlupkes 16:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the history to see who set it up so I could ask them, hah...

Would such a category be focused on international politics? If so, we need another to serve the purpose which this one ended up trying to. I'm working on that here, and feedback is invited. --Jesdisciple (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I do need to point out something important. This Wiki is set up to provide a way for people to collaborate on Governance within the governments around the world. There is a different site set up for the grassroots to debate politics and issues. That's the role of Campaigns.

Back to the subject, I'll take a look at your proposal. If this category should be focused on global geography, allowing people to navigate around between the geographic regions, that's one path. Or if we want to talk about Global Governance, like the United Nations or the Multi-lateral Trade Agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, that's another. We'll see. Chadlupkes 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I know discussion of issues doesn't belong here. In fact, I'm curious what prompted you to mention that.

I think we probably need both. The importance of geography is highlighted by the sidebar menu; the importance of global governance quite obviously comes from both words in the term. Of course, the two branches will inevitably intersect at the country level, because different countries are parties in different agreements.

Note that I dissolved the "Continents" category because I realized political regions don't necessarily have any direct relation to land masses. Also note that the two top categories in my rework should probably be combined, unless a sibling for "Geographical units" can be found. --Jesdisciple (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I brought in issues because you brought in politics. It might just be me, but politics is too often defined as a way of bringing issues into governance, and most people hate it when "politics is brought up in governance". It's part of life as long as we are human, but I've always thought that separating the two should be the way we go. Thus the two different wikia sites.

Sounds like you have good ideas of what needs to change in the high level categories. Chadlupkes 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record...

I'm glad you like them. :) Do you think we should OK this with Anupam or just go ahead with our two-person consensus? --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think the best way to go is to add the updated categories to the necessary pages and put a 'Recommended Deletion' notice on the categories that need to go away. Chadlupkes 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I used the Rework/ prefix to avoid naming conflicts. So until the old categories are removed, it must stay.

Also, do you mean the {{delete}} template or something less... weighty? I'm assuming that you want Anupam to 'vote' by either deleting or discussing further, plus you said "Recommended." I'm not sure {{delete}} would accomplish that. --Jesdisciple (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the "NIKE" approach too. Just do it. Chadlupkes 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The move has occurred, but there are still a few categories which I think need to be trimmed. In particular, I think Geography should be directly under Browse. What needs to be preserved from the old structure? --Jesdisciple (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider this topic unresolved; please reply. A complete list of such topics with rationale is available at User:Jesdisciple/Loose threads. --Jesdisciple (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)