The antagonist badge (as an example) is keyed off the antagonist category. As many antagonists aren't in that category but Antagonist (<Series>) categories this prevents you from getting the badge for them... can the badges be fixed to work with the current category setup?
I was recently shown that a categorization set up I wanted (Donnie's Inventions vs Donnie's Inventions <by series>) was excessive on pages then I found Bo. Can I remove the Weapons <by series> categories from that page and any similar I find?
One of the primary issues about overcategorization, in general, is avoiding excess cluttering of parent categories with entries that can be better placed in subcategories. In years past, Turtlepedia had a habit of routinely putting articles in every applicable subcategory and parent category, with the result that many parent characters had hundreds of direct placements and were far less efficient to browse by category. It is the established practice of certain large wikis like Wikipedia to keep parent categories as free as possible from entries that are better placed in subcategories. From the perspective of any librarian, it certainly does make sense to manage categories in a sense that not only makes them efficient to browse, but also efficient to maintain. At first when I brought it up with The S he was skeptical about it, so I let it go at the time. Then, one day, The S started decluttering parent categories in much the way I had suggested, and increasingly the category structure has become much easier to browse and maintain.
As an example, yes, the bo is a weapon. But many very different objects are also weapons, and they can have very little in common beyond being weapons. So sometimes it's easier to sort weapons not just by continuity or inventor, but also by basic type of weapon—whether they stab, bludgeon, shoot projectiles, etc.
Of course, if a particular category entry can be considered important and iconic enough to merit a discretionary placement higher in the category hierarchy, it might be appropriate to place it there in addition to its subcategory placements. An example is Category:Humans. They are also technically Category:Apes, Category:Primates, Category:Mammals, Category:Reptiles, Category:Amphibians, Category:Fish and Category:Vertebrates. But which of those categories seem like natural places to look for them? That would be Category:Apes because that's one of their most direct parent categories, and Category:Mammals because they are often thought of as mammals in relation to other non-mammal characters, and perhaps also Category:Vertebrates because their unique status of dominance among vertebrates makes them of noteworthy mention alongside fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Humans may have evolved from fish, amphibians and reptiles in that order and technically are them, but are not as immediately associated in the reader's mind with being any of them, which makes a direct placement in those parent characters look like unnecessary clutter.
And also, of course, sometimes there's such a thing as too many subcategories. In the past, I went a little nuts with taxonomical classification of species, and created categories like Tetrapods, Amniotes, Squamates, Eutherians, Laurasiatherians, Supraprimates, etc. These are of interest to geeky molecular biologists, but they seem rather hypertechnical for the most useful everyday purposes of Turtlepedia categories. I later rearranged them for more direct placements in familiar categories like Mammals, Birds, etc., and kept a few particularly recognizable group categories like Category:Ungulates (most hoofed animals), Category:Carnivorans (dogs and cats and their nearer relatives), etc. While it may be an occasional obscure plot point that rats are frequently used as laboratory animals specifically because they and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to most other mammals, this is usually considered obscure trivia, and it wasn't absolutely necessary to have a Supraprimates or Euarchontoglirans category (the two terms are synonymous) just to put Category:Rodents, Category:Rabbits and hares (Lagomorphs) and Category:Primates together.
But what if, when you divide the categories, some categories have only one entry? In those situations, it's possible even to have too many relevant categories, too, if a disproportionate amount of them contain only one entry. There are some categories where it may be all right to have just one entry in them, but for example, it wasn't absolutely necessary to have Category:Hedgehogs unless there were entries besides Sonic the Hedgehog in them, so for a while he was instead placed among Mammals, as there were no other more immediate categories he could be placed into. And that remained the case until we placed Stone Hedgehog into categories, and suddenly there was a better reason for a Hedgehogs category to exist.
As a question of cladistics, they are. As mammals, humans are also synapsid reptiles, tetrapod amphibians and lobe-finned fish, though it may be more accurate to classify them in Synapsida, Amniota, Tetrapoda and Sarcopterygii, which are clear clades. But Turtlepedia categories aren't given such hypertechnical names—they're organized in more familiar terms. Even Category:Lizards is generally a familiarly-named placeholder for Squamata, so it includes Category:Snakes as a subcategory, since all snakes are members of the Toxicofera branch of squamates.
Nobody's even spoken to me about it since it was decided not to go forward with them however many months ago. Other than occasionally randomly seeing someone re-add a page to a category, I've not heard a peep about them.
I was confused by it more than anything else. I get it now but I did put up a blog post about the benefit of categories.
(First Edit regarding User:Ms.HamatoAlexander's comments, edit made at 3:55pm Eastern)
I never said I felt like it was a personal attack and as I understood it my blog entries were for personal opinions, do I need to take it down? (I really wish that people didn't put words in my mouth like that)
(Second Edit: clarification of confusion at 4:04pm Eastern)
The TMNTPedia:Policy and TMNTPedia:Manual_of_Style pages don't seem to address all the rules about categories so I was adding categories in good faith and haven't gotten a clear cut reference I can read on what should and should not be a category.
I do recall that The S said recently that he has been intending to update the policy and/or manual of style pages, but hasn't been able to. Something about issues of health or energy or wakefulness, all of which I could understand. But especially with situations like these, I believe it is of increased importance that those pages be updated.
The S: Could it be possible that you could turn that process into a sort of working group? If you are spread thin for whatever reason, you need not do everything yourself, as you have both co-administrators as well as long-term editors to help inform such a process. The wiki is still active, and it still needs to be able to function with clear rules for the sake of clearing up everyone's confusion. My suggestion here may not necessarily be practical for unforeseen reasons, but it's worth considering.
After The S woke up, he changed his gibberish comments in the Warren & Hypno, Sitting in a Tree article to intelligible comments he composed on the spot, rather than deleting them. His sleeptexting words are complete gibberish—semi-random sequences of letters and some numbers separated with some spaces. But in our thread here, another moderator deleted his sleeppost on sight.
I wonder if the English and pseudo-English have anything to do with muscle memory. The muscles in our hands and elsewhere often remember activities we do a great deal until they become second nature to us. It's efficient to have localized body memories so we can repeat these activities with graceful finesse. Handwriting. Typing. Playing musical instruments. But we can't always necessary "do these in our sleep," because it takes two to tango: An active mind to plan an activity, and muscle memory to remember what to do when told. I wonder if these sleepposts are mostly muscle memory acting on confused commands of a sleeping (and possibly dreaming) brain.
That's exactly what I imagine it is. I'm going to have to share the information link The S shared with my daughter, she's starting school studying Psychology and this is very interesting information IMO for her to be aware of.
I'm actually nearly finished with the rewrite, birthday plans delayed the wrapup a bit but hopefully it shan't be too long. In hindsight I really should have delegated. However, I'd love to know whether you folks have anything in particular you would like clarity on.
Sidebar: As I learned when I had extensive nerve damage, muscle memory isn't related to muscles at all, but the nervous system.
You know, for future reference, perhaps it would help to prepare others for your future sleepposts, especially since it may hours before you or a moderator alters or deletes them. The problem is, all the examples created so far have already been edited or deleted. It may help others to know what they look like (with example text) to identify whether you've been sleeptexting.