Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Grouping tasks: Difference between revisions

More on categorization
No edit summary
(More on categorization)
Line 13:
However, the system of categories under [[:Category:Solutions by Programming Task]] is to difficult for me to understand, so I will not yet group these tasks. I just learned that [[Template:Task]] takes a parameter (as <nowiki>{{task|something goes here}}</nowiki>). --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
:Yeah I had tried to organize the tasks long ago, but it didn't work as well as I had hoped. It would be a little easier to understand with the category tree extension, but it still wouldn't be that good. The argument for the task template is for a category to put it in. I say go ahead and make the category. I think people use [[:Category:Programming Tasks]] in general anyway, so it won't confuse people. If you can think of any more groups go ahead and suggest them here. Maybe we can give the organization another shot. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 
:I did a quick analysis of classifications on RC [[Icon%2BUnicon/Analysis_of_UnimplementedTasks#Analysis_of_Programming_Categories_on_Rosetta|Analysis of Rosetta Programming Categories]] as part trying to understand how the classifications evolved (for another purpose). This may be of use. Feel free to copy it for this purpose.
::It seems to me that there are opportunities where consolidation is in order. Do we really need Prime, Primes, and Prime Numbers? Would we want to fix and have redirects?
::It's also clear that things have been misfiled over time.
::And there a quite a few with one member in the category as well.
::I started to look at Crypto classes at [[Talk:RSA_code#New.2FModified_Tasks_and_Categories]] as well.
::I know that SML may change the way this gets approached. I haven't made any progress on that myself, anyone else?
:Thoughts? --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Anonymous user