From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Revision as of 02:53, 15 September 2006 by Alice Wyman (talk | contribs) (→‎Category:Page display: typo)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Over the last twelve months we have introduced categories to the Knowledge Base. There has been a great deal of discussion over the nature and purpose of the categories, and the extent to which they should be used by visitors trying to locate information. This page is long; before adding new comments please read the table of contents to get an idea of what has been discussed so far.

This page also presents the current version of the category hierarchy used in the Knowledge Base. We try to keep this tree up-to-date.

Archived previous talk

See Talk:Rules/Categories/March 2005. This archive contains the original motivation for implementing categories and the proposed removal of the original FAQ, Tips and Issues pages.

Most important points (feel free to correct this if I got it wrong):

  • Some categories pages may have a manually maintained list of pages in their editable area.
  • Generally don't put an article both in a category and its subcategory. (This effectively makes Category:Firefox the home for uncategorized articles).
  • If an article is categorized in Issues, it should be categorized in another, semantic, category as well.
  • "basics" category was a controversial idea. If it gets implemented, make it a "view", like Issues. Make it clear. The point is: we don't want to repeat the mistake of FAQs/Tips pages again.
  • Get rid of Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla Suite pages; link to correspondent categories instead using {{Firefox}}.

--asqueella 16:07, 7 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Category hierarchy

Below is the current version of the category hierarchy used in the Knowledge Base. Feel free to edit or contribute to the tree, but please add comments below explaining your changes or suggestions. (Note that some categories are displayed in red; these are categories which have not yet been "brought to life", either because they have not received general acceptance or because there are currently too few articles to justify their creation.)--Np 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the Thunderbird section to reflect reality, and edited the comments about what it shares. There are good reasons why categories for apps that include a browser sometimes don't make sense for a email/news client. I did not edit the other sections to update any of the comments about whats shared. I have also removed Thunderbird from the newly created Connecting to the Internet category (both in this tree and in the actual category) since 2 out of the 4 articles in it don't apply to Thunderbird. The other two articles are in both Issues (Thunderbird) and Sending and receiving mail (Thunderbird) so its not like they're going to be lost. Tanstaafl 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Category tree

Category:Top level
 +--Category:Introduction (to mozilla apps; for Intro_:_... pages. Need a better name, perhaps "General"?)
 +--Category:General concepts (pages like CSS or User agent go here)
 | End-user support
 +--Category:Firefox   [See here for a big list of all Fx articles]
 |   +--Category:Installation and update (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Startup - Firefox
 |   +--Category:Performance - Firefox
 |   +--Category:Issues (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Keyboard and mouse (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Searches (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Extensions (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Visual customizations (Firefox)
 |   +--Category:Connecting to the Internet   (shared with all apps)
 |   +--Category:Bookmarks            (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Websites         (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Plugins              (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Privacy and security (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Migration (browser)  (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Profiles             (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Configuration        (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +-- more!
 +--Category:Thunderbird  [See here for how TB articles were remapped when categories were created]
 |   +--Category:Installation and update (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Issues (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Keyboard and mouse (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Mail (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:E-mail account setup (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Sending and receiving mail (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Composing messages (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Organizing and finding messages (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Displaying and printing messages (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Address Book (Thunderbird)
 |   |   +--Category:Attachments (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Extensions (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Visual customizations (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Newsgroups (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:RSS (Thunderbird)
 |   +--Category:Migration (mail)     (shared with all mail apps)
 |   +--Category:Privacy and security (Thunderbird) 
 |   +--Category:Profiles             (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Configuration (Thunderbird)     
 |   +-- more!
 +--Category:Mozilla Suite
 |   +--Category:Installation and update (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Startup and performance (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Issues (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Mail (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Searches (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Extensions (Mozilla Suite)
 |   +--Category:Visual customizations (Mozilla Suite)
 | ...
 |   +--Category:Connecting to the Internet   (shared with all apps)
 |   +--Category:Bookmarks            (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Websites         (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Plugins              (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Migration (browser)  (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Migration (mail)     (shared with all mail apps)
 |   +--Category:Privacy and security (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Profiles             (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Configuration        (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +-- more!
 | Camino, Composer, Sunbird etc.
 |   +--Category:Installation and update (AppName)
 |   +--Category:Startup and performance (AppName)
 |   +--Category:Issues (AppName)
 | ...
 |   +--Category:Connecting to the Internet   (shared with all apps)
 |   +--Category:Bookmarks            (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Websites         (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Plugins              (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Migration (browser)  (shared with all browser apps)
 |   +--Category:Migration (mail)     (shared with all mail 
 |   +--Category:Privacy and security (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Profiles             (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +--Category:Configuration        (shared with all Moz apps)
 |   +-- more!
 | Development
 +--Category:Development (most of this probably wants to live on Devmo)
 |   +--Category:Development tools (DOM Inspector, Venkman etc.)
 |   +--Category:Example code
 |   |   +--Category:XUL example code
 |   |   +--Category:JavaScript example code
 |   |   +--Category:XML in JavaScript
 |   |   +--Category:XPCOM example code
 |   +--Category:JavaScript
 |   +--...
 | Knowledge base organization
 +--Category:MozillaZine Knowledge Base organization (mimics [1]; for Rules etc.)
     +--Category:Articles to clean up

Thunderbird categories hierarchy

This (above) is the best I can do for now. I wanted the TB structure to roughly mirror the FF structure, but to be honest I couldn’t quite grasp the FF structure. The difference between Category:Basics and Category:Configuration isn’t intuitively clear to me; it looks too much like the ambiguous FAQs vs. Tips distinction. And if it’s not intuitively clear to me (someone who’s quite familiar with the kb and the products involved), then I doubt it will be for average end-users. As a result, the structure that I’ve made for TB instead basically mirrors the organization of the current Thuderbird : Issues/FAQs/Tips pages. Anyway, feel free to change the Thunderbird structure above as you think best. Sorry, btw, for not linkifying the categories as in the Firefox part. Wintogreen 19:25, 7 Mar 2005 (PST)

Do you think the category name should be "Profiles", not "Profile" or is that a typo? --asqueella
It was deliberate. For TB, at least, the Profiles secion includes migration and other cases where you're dealing with more than one profile, so the plural sounds better to me. Wintogreen
For the sake of consistency, I changed correspondent Firefox category name to "Profiles". asqueella
looks like we settled on a shared Profiles category. --asqueella 16:23, 7 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Any other comments about the proposed Thunderbird categories? They look quite different from the proposed Firefox categories. Is that OK? Should people start using them? Wintogreen 08:46, 26 Mar 2005 (PST)

I think it's ok to have different structure for Thunderbird, after all, there are more TB docs than Fx, and they are better categorized. I had problems categorizing Fx pages, because I'm not really familiar with everything we have here. Someone must be able to do a better job there.
I have linkified TB links to watch the implementation progress :)
Note, I created the upto template, which I think should be used on sub-categories. E.g.: {{up to|Category:Example code}} adds an "Up to Category:Example code" and puts the [[Category:Example code]] tag on the page. asqueella
Thanks for linkifying the TB categories, and for the feedback. --wintogreen

I've updated the TB categories above. Migrating is now separate from Profiles. Customizations is now gone, broken into simply Visual customizations and Extensions. I added Configuration (minus the "Advanced" part). I'm glad that the Fx and TB categories look so similar now. That will make it easier to produce the Suite categories, surely. --Wintogreen 07:52, 10 Apr 2005 (PDT)

Firefox categories hierarchy

To aid with categorization of Firefox articles I created a list of articles (gathered from Firefox:FAQs/Tips/Issues) at Talk:Rules/Categories/Firefox. Feel free to edit that page. --asqueella

I moved most of the sections created there back to tree here. --asqueella 16:23, 7 Apr 2005 (PDT)

I don't think I'd go with a shared category "Migration" for all apps. A shared "Profiles" category works well because almost all of the articles are in fact shared. But for TB, there are already 8 (or more) articles related to migration; most of these will apply to the Suite none will apply to Firefox. Doesn't seem like it would be especially helpful to throw them all into one shared category. (Oh, and as for "Configuration", I agree with dropping the "Advanced" part.) --wintogreen


I was just going to add an article to the Profiles category when I realised that we are currently planning to have complementary Profiles categories for each Mozilla app. Given that many of the profile-related articles so far are multi-app in nature (Profile folder, Profile Manager, Profile backup, Roaming profile) perhaps we should unify these complementary categories into one single top-level one as we have done with Category:plugins. --Mozcerize

Sounds like a good idea. I've been thinking that TB would be better with Profiles separate from Migration-related articles anyway, since there are quite a few of the latter. --Wintogreen 21:00, 5 Apr 2005 (PDT)
I like that too --asqueella
I updated the draft tree to reflect that change, couldn't think of a good name for the category that will include the rest of articles from former "Profiles (Thunderbird)". --asqueella
I've also not been able to think of one. But really, unless I'm misunderstanding what should and should not go in the Profiles category, I think there are only two TB articles that will be homeless: Moving your mail storage location (Thunderbird) and Recovering deleted mail accounts. Can't these two just drop into the main TB "Mail" category? I think they would be found easily enough by people who need them. --wintogreen
While we're at it, it seems to me that we could drop the "(application)" part from a few other categories. E.g.: Migration, the category for user.js/prefs.js/about:config, currently titled "Advanced configuration" (I think I dislike the name), Page display, Security and Privacy (?), Bookmarks.
The point here is: drop the "(application)" part (1) for categories where most of articles are shared (profiles) or where the concept doesn't apply to other app (plugins/bookmarks are browser-only); (2) when there are relatively few articles in a category and their titles clearly specify what apps they apply to (e.g. migration)--asqueella 16:23, 7 Apr 2005 (PDT)
With an eye to the future rather than how things stand now, I'd include the app names in the categories. I say this after having looked at a TB nightly build for the first time in months and finding a lot of changes in it (incl. an overhaul of the interface for setting up smtp servers). When 1.1 comes out, some of the currently shared articles might not be shared anymore. Plus, having the app name in the category, even if it's a little ugly, will always be 100% clear to end-users. --wintogreen
okay --asqueella


I suggest that this should be a shared category, like Category:Profiles. This is because plugins also apply to the Mozilla Suite. They could potentially apply to other Moz apps too. --Mozcerize 09:56, 18 May 2005 (PDT)

Sounds like a good idea. --Wintogreen 06:56, 19 May 2005 (PDT)
It was implied, that's why the category didn't have "(Firefox)" after its name. --asqueella 13:36, 19 May 2005 (PDT)
Ah, I thought that subcategories of Category:Firefox which didn't have (Firefox) in the name were ones which could only make sense within Firefox. No big deal ;-) Should Keyboard and Mouse Tips also have (Firefox) in the name, or are we going to bundle together tips for different Moz apps in the same category? --Mozcerize 00:55, 20 May 2005 (PDT)
Maybe it would make sense to have separate categories, but almost all articles in Talk:Rules/Categories/Firefox#Keyboard_and_mouse_tips do not have "(Firefox)" in their name. --asqueella 05:15, 20 May 2005 (PDT)
As I noted earlier at the end of the previous section ("Category:Profiles"), I think it's better to keep the app names in these kinds of categories. It'll mean more work initially, but I think it'll be better in the long run. --Wintogreen 05:24, 20 May 2005 (PDT)

Unique category names/multiple categories

Is there a requirement that category names be unique? Like, we can't have Firefox -> Issues and also Mozilla Suite Issues?

Yes, they have to be unique. So unfortunately we can't have two categories called Issues, one inside the Firefox category and one inside the Mozilla Suite category. --Mozcerize

Also, if an issue applies to both Firefox and Mozilla Suite, is the thinking we'd put two categories on that article? --Np 08:02, 13 September 2005 (PDT)

Yes. --Mozcerize 08:41, 14 September 2005 (PDT)
Don't forget that Issues is a view, so an article in Issues should also be placed in another, semantic, category where possible. (For example, lost bookmarks will also belong in the Bookmarks category.) --Mozcerize

Some new categories

Having looked at some of our current articles, I have added two new categories: Category:Installation and update (Firefox), Category:Startup and performance (Firefox) and the corresponding categories for Thunderbird. Does everyone agree? --Mozcerize 08:13, 18 September 2005 (PDT)

So why do you think Startup and performance is a good idea? It has a single article, and startup/performance are not closely related (except when talking about startup performance, of course) --asqueella 04:00, 20 September 2005 (PDT)
As for linking startup with performance, I envisage it containing info on crashes, failures to start etc, rather than info on tweaking for speed etc. Feel free to suggest other ideas. --Mozcerize

Sorry if I goofed but I added a Category:Startup and performance (Mozilla Suite) page because there was already one article included in that category and I added a second before realizing that the category page itself did not exist. Only reason I did so was because I noticed that Np has been adding pages to two new category pages, Category:Startup_-_Firefox and Category:Performance_-_Firefox. Alice Wyman 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Startup and performance" category

Following up on the above, I'd like to have a TB category dealing primarily with the app's interaction with the OS (or issues that users might think are OS related), including:

Doing so would clear all these out of the main TB category, but I'm not sure about the category name. Anyone have a good idea other than "Startup and performance (Thunderbird)"? --wintogreen 11:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Startup and performance" accurately describes this group of articles. I would never think to look in such a category for info about running from USB drives or setting default applications. As you suggest, the articles are more to do with… "System interaction". Unfortunately, the names I come up with for this category become ever more ridiculous :-P --Mozcerize 11:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I would have thought that articles dealing with command line arguments fit rather nicely in a "Startup" category (even if that category doesn't include "performance"). If not, then I must really not be getting what was meant by the "Startup and performance" category in the first place. Of course, it could also be that the grouping of articles I've proposed doesn't work very well. An alternative would be to have 3 separate categories (Startup, Performance, and OS), but it seems stupid to create 3 new categories just to clear a dozen articles out of the main TB page. Ugh. --wintogreen 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with moving them into a new category when there isn't a blindingly obvious name for it, and some of those articles are inherently cross-category. Its difficult finding lots of stuff already because whoever categorized it choose a different one than you expected. I would argue that six of those articles could be safely moved into the configuration category. I disagree with the implied goal that all articles should be in a subcategory. You can get too organized. --Tanstaafl 4:27AM 16 January 2006 (PMT)
Not to worry, it's not my goal to put every article in a subcategory, and I've already dropped the idea to do so with the articles listed above, as it just doesn't seem to work in a way that would really be beneficial. If some articles are hard to find, please feel free to recategorize them or add them to another category if it makes more sense. The vast majority, though, are categorized the same as they were listed on the old FAQs page -- which is where the category names came from in the first place. --wintogreen 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to go?

Seeing as how there's been little talk about this since May, I'd say it's good to go.--Np 12:01, 16 September 2005 (PDT)

My feeling is that the lack of recent action has been mainly due to the somewhat time-consuming and tedious nature of implementing the changes :-P Conceptualization is always more fun than implementation!
But you're right, it needs to be done. Let's get Asqueella and Wintergreen's agreement too. Then let's summarize any problematic areas that we haven't fully resolved. Then let's actually do it! :-O --Mozcerize 09:25, 17 September 2005 (PDT)
As you can guess, I'm okay with these changes ;-)
Sorry for not contributing here lately; I think I will be able to help with moving things around. --asqueella 14:20, 17 September 2005 (PDT)

Categories in practice

Please can we encourage people to put category and template declarations at the top of an article (rather than at the bottom, or hidden away in between paragraphs), so they are easy to find when editing? Thanks! --Mozcerize 09:01, 18 September 2005 (PDT)

Ugh! I've just discovered that if you place a template declaration at the top of a page, any blank line which follows it is ignored (which is desirable). However, if you put a category declaration at the top (irrespective if there are template declarations there as well) then asubsequent blank line is not ignored, resulting in the first paragraph of real content being displayed lower than it should be.
In summary: don't allow blank lines around category declarations at the top of the page. They must sit right on top of the first line of real content. --Mozcerize 02:37, 19 September 2005 (PDT)
Why put them at the top? The common practice is to put them at the bottom of the page. --asqueella 04:04, 19 September 2005 (PDT)
I think it's easier that way. When they are at the top, you can see at a glance what the metadata is for the article when you go to edit it. It's not an important issue though! --Mozcerize
Also, with the appliesto templates doing some of the job of category declarations, the convention that some people use that template declarations go at the top but category declarations go at the bottom is actually unhelpful and confusing when you need to add an appliesto and a separate category declaration. --Mozcerize 05:01, 19 September 2005 (PDT)
I'm really used to placing categories to the bottom. What do you think about putting them to the bottom by default, but next to the appliesto template, if one is used? I know it sucks, but really, the categorization information isn't the most important thing for most editors. --asqueella
Ok, a fair compromise! --Mozcerize 08:46, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

Questions to be answered

We're off! I've done some of the easy reorganization. Lots of questions have now arised :-P

  • Category:Issues (Firefox): Are we going to replace this category with two different categories, one for website issues / page display issues, and one for browser issues? (Compare with Talk:Rules/Categories/Firefox.) Or are we going to make these into subcategories of Issues (Firefox)? Or are we going to bundle everything into Issues (Firefox)?
    • I was thinking about subcategories, just like with Thunderbird. --asqueella
  • Category:Keyboard and mouse tips (Firefox): I prefer the title Category:Keyboard and mouse (Firefox) because the articles aren't always tips. They can be issues, discussions of extensions, lists of shortcuts, etc.
  • Category:Searches: Do we need to append "(Firefox)"? (I know nothing about these articles or this category.)
    • I don't remember for sure, but I think it was going to contain articles about the Search Bar, Location Bar searches, etc. I didn't include the suffix, because those articles all (except Search Bar) apply to suite/fx. I don't mind having a suffix here. In fact, looks like my examples of appliesto tempate (see Talk:Rules/Templates) create the variants with suffixes. --asqueella
  • Category:Security and privacy: I prefer the title Category:Privacy and security. It sounds more natural, it corresponds to how other websites describe this genre, and it's in alphabetical order! Do we need to append "(Firefox)" or are all privacy and security issues going to go under one roof? I can imagine that lots of articles are going to relate to profiles and hence would be shared between Fx and TB. On the other hand, things like encrypted mail would belong just to TB (and perhaps the Mozilla Suite?).
  • Category:Migrating: I believe we decided to share this category. I think it should be called Category:Migration.
  • Category:Visual customizations (Firefox): Ugh! I know we've discussed this, but this name is awful. How about Category:Appearance or Category:Appearance changes? Or Category:User interface modifications? This category is beginning to suck. ;-)
    • I still think Visual customizations is the least sucking name. --asqueella
      • Ok, I suppose it's the name which describes the category most clearly. --Mozcerize
  • Category:Configuration: I think we need to append "(Firefox)".
  • Category:Tabbed browsing (Firefox): I still agree with the idea of this category, but do we need the "(Firefox)"? Will the Mozilla Suite have its own tabbed browsing category?
    • We would have two articles in this category now, one of which is Firefox : Issues : Alt Enter Doesn't Work, cross-categorized under keyboard&mouse. I doubt we actually need this category now. We certainly can't decide if this should be Firefox-specific or shared category without seeing more existing articles. --asqueella
      • OK, I thought we'd acquired more tabbed browsing articles since then. I shall stick the current articles at the top level for Firefox. --Mozcerize

Enough questions for now! --Mozcerize 10:18, 18 September 2005 (PDT)

Note that the Firefox part of the tree draft above wan't updated for a while. In fact, iirc, I haven't got good ideas as to what concrete categories to include for Firefox, so I started the /Firefox page. That page has real categories, not this draft... I think.

Indeed --Mozcerize

Also, fwiw, I'm ok with the wording changes I didn't comment on above. --asqueella 15:00, 18 September 2005 (PDT)

Ok. --Mozcerize

For now, I don't think we should have a Misc. category. Let's start by shoving all misc articles in the top level for Fx, and we'll worry about subcategorizing them later. --Mozcerize 02:20, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

Category: Webpage issues

I don't think we need the additional Webpage issues category, as a subcategory of Issues (Firefox). We can just use the existing Page display category for that, and either make it a subcategory of Issues (Firefox), or add [[Category:Issues (Firefox)]] to all of Page display articles. Thoughts? --asqueella 07:11, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

I'm fine with that. In which case, let's scrap the complementary category Category:Application issues (Firefox) and stick everything in Issues (Firefox)--Mozcerize 07:19, 19 September 2005 (PDT)
Everything or just those pages that are not in Page display already? I'd go with the latter. --asqueella
The latter --Mozcerize

List of all articles in one page?

I think that the pages we made to assist in categorizing categories, namely Talk:Rules/Categories/Firefox and Talk:Rules/Categories/Thunderbird, are useful for general population. However, if they need to be maintained by hand, they will not be in sync with the actual articles and categories. We need something that does this automatically.

Indeed; if it's not automatic then it's no better than the old Tips/FAQs pages! The category pages themselves give a list of the articles they contain, but I agree that a "site map"-style page listing all articles by category would be very nice. --Mozcerize

A quick google search found this one: [2]. I don't like the output it produces, but at least it demonstrates that this can be implemented. Anyone's up to tweaking/coding the extension and getting kerz to install it? --asqueella 08:13, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

Categories with little content

I don't think creating a category when there's one or two pages that can be put there is a good idea (Installation and upgrade / Startup and performance). Let's just leave the articles in Category:Firefox, that is, uncategorized. --asqueella 09:14, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

Indeed; that's why I left them! They can be created if and when enough relevant articles are created. --Mozcerize 14:41, 19 September 2005 (PDT)

Migration category to be shared?

We currently have a bunch of articles about migration in mail apps (see Category:Migrating (Mozilla Suite)), and two Firefox articles.

Should we go with a single "Migration" category for all those articles, or should separate categories be created for each app?

I think we should have Category:Migration with all migration-related articles, and also put the two Firefox articles in Category:Firefox, so that they can be browsed to using categories easily. --asqueella 09:24, 19 September 2005 (PDT) (see also above)

Sounds fine. I think that we are adopting the right approach: it's important that things get filed under a high-level category (e.g. Migration) to begin with, and then factored into subcategories as and when enough related articles accumulate. --Mozcerize 14:44, 19 September 2005 (PDT)
wintogreen said above: "I don't think I'd go with a shared category "Migration" for all apps. A shared "Profiles" category works well because almost all of the articles are in fact shared. But for TB, there are already 8 (or more) articles related to migration; most of these will apply to the Suite none will apply to Firefox. Doesn't seem like it would be especially helpful to throw them all into one shared category."
lol, and I remember reading that too, but then something further down the page made me think that he'd changed his mind! I must have imagined it. Personally, I also think that separate Migration categories are better, but I was happy to compromise as I though both you and Wintergreen wanted shared ones! So let's go with separate ones after all. There probably aren't enough Migration articles for Firefox, so we'll stick them in the top Firefox level. (I stand by my last comment above, just replace the word "Migration" with "Firefox" ;-) --Mozcerize 01:54, 20 September 2005 (PDT)
So if we make the migration category for mail-related stuff only, how do we name it? --asqueella 02:38, 20 September 2005 (PDT)
Good question. We could go with Category:Migration (Thunderbird), Category:Migration (Firefox) etc, but the migration processes will usually be the same for all mail apps (TB and Suite) and for all browser apps (Fx, Suite, Netscape), and of course they may contain articles about migrating between TB and Suite, or between Fx and Suite (rather than between Moz apps and non--Moz apps). I haven't thought too deeply about the consequences yet, but how about going with Category:Migration (mail) and Category:Migration (browser)? This is a departure from our usual naming scheme, but it is one place where I think this could really be useful. --Mozcerize 02:47, 20 September 2005 (PDT)
Sounds fine, but let's only create the (mail) category right now, as the other would have only two articles --asqueella 03:55, 20 September 2005 (PDT)
Indeed. Where I have proposed categories which currently don't have enough articles, my intentions is that they should not be created until there is a demand. such proposals are long-term proposals, which identify where there is likely to be a need in the future (so we may as well get a feel for what our long-term category tree may look like) but not necessarily a need now. --Mozcerize 04:11, 20 September 2005 (PDT)

Releasing categories to the wild!

So all the internal articles at Issues with Firefox have had category info added, and this article is now obsolete. So we should discuss phase 2: removing that article and getting users to understand categories. Let's make a list of things that need to be done.

  • Put more info into Rules/Categories teaching users how to add category info to articles which they edit or create;
    • What do you think is missing from that page? --asqueella
      • A very brief introduction to why we've moved to categories and what we gain from them, and a quick demonstration as to how to place an article into a category, perhaps also mentioning the appliesto templates. (A rationale already exists on that page under "Various", but it should be tidied up and placed at the top of the page.) --Mozcerize
  • Delete Issues with Firefox, or redirect it to Category:Issues (Firefox);
    • We can't redirect to categories, so we'll actually have to use a lame "This page has moved" trick. --asqueella
      • Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that. Well never mind, using that trick will have to do. It's only there to deal with external links onto that old Issues article. --Mozcerize
  • Decide what (if any) info we will put into the editable area of the category. Perhaps a selection of the most popular articles in that category.
  • Wrap external links from the Issues with Firefox page into internal articles, or advertise the external links in the editable area of the category. (I prefer the former);
    • Yeah, wrap them, and put into a category, like "Needs migration" --asqueella
  • Put a big notice on the front page that categories are go, and that all editors should read Rules/Categories to learn how to add category information to articles.
    • I don't think we need that. --asqueella
      • Well, I think we need a way of informing new and existing editors that they need to place any article they create into a category. Otherwise we'll just end up with a bunch of orphaned articles that will never be seen by anybody because there are no links to them anywhere! We should inform existing editors why and how the pages that they were familiar with---Issues/FAQ/tips---have gone. --Mozcerize
        • There are a few regular editors, no more than 20, and thousands of readers. The readers don't care much about categories, and editors will probably know about the changes from recent pages. Anyways, we can just update the link that is there currently (in-house style) to point to a page explaining the changes. No need for a "big notice". --asqueella
          • Ok, perhaps my use of language was a bit over the top :-P I was thinking of exactly that---a link like that we currently have for in-house style, perhaps also in bold (ooh!) --Mozcerize

Maybe we should wait until all FAQ/tips articles have been done, before doing the stuff above? Is it better to set a good example by having as many articles as possible categorized so that editors know that this really is the new way of doing things? --Mozcerize 04:11, 20 September 2005 (PDT)

I'd say, first make the Issues category look fine (i.e. deal with external links and editable area), then replace the Issues page with the category. --asqueella
Ok, so we'll run with the Issues page/category as a test-case. --Mozcerize 08:41, 20 September 2005 (PDT)

Belated followup: see this discussion. --Alice Wyman 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbird categories

Sorry I've been away lately. Good to see that categories are (finally!) being implemented, but I'm a bit puzzled about how the TB categories are being used so far. Seems rather haphazard to me. E.g., Renaming address books and Moving address books between profiles were put in the general "Thunderbird" category instead of the "Address Book" category. Similarly, Archiving your e-mail has been put into "Mail (Thunderbird)" instead of "Organizing and finding messages". Shouldn't the articles be categorized more or less following what I laid out here? If not, then what guidelines are people following? --wintogreen 06:13, 16 October 2005 (PDT)

For the address book ones, the problem is that people (ie: me) are going by the categories that actually exist under Thunderbird rather than what's listed on this page. For archiving, yeah, it should probably be under Organizing.--Np 11:21, 16 October 2005 (PDT)
By "actually exist under Thunderbird", do you mean the subcategories currently listed at Category:Thunderbird? If so, isn't the idea to simply create the categories shown above, as needed, so that the articles can go into the appropriate categories? --wintogreen 19:28, 16 October 2005 (PDT)
Hi wintogreen! Some of us (mainly Np---good work!) have been dealing with the Special:Uncategorizedpages articles and adding basic category info to them. This will make that special page a lot more useful, as it will now be much easier to spot new articles which need category info added. (The number of uncategorized articles has shrunk from almost a thousand to just over 200.) To do this, we just dumped a lot of Thunderbird stuff directly in Category:Thunderbird. This was due to (a) laziness and (b) the fact that, for myself at least, I don't know much about TB and thought it better to leave the finer-grained categorization to people like you who know TB very well. We don't have any problems with the suggested TB categories I think, but again they've been left for a TB expert to implement, so that they can use their judgment to ensure that the category hierarchy is appropriate.
This is kind of how I envisaged categories working anyway: editors should categorize articles to a depth which they feel comfortable with, and then other editors who are more knowledgeable can move them deeper. It's an iterative process.
Good to see you back, btw! --Mozcerize 01:29, 17 October 2005 (PDT)
Thanks, Mozcerize, for the explanation (and for the welcome back!). Apologies if I sounded like I was slamming Np's work -- not what I intended. It's just that I haven't kept up with the flurry of discussion and activity here lately and, not having worked with categories here or on any other wiki, I wasn't really sure what was going on implementation-wise. Well, I'll start dabbling with the TB categories and do what I can when I have time. If you notice that I'm doing something wrong with the implementation, PLEASE drop a note in my Talk page. Thanks! --wintogreen 02:33, 17 October 2005 (PDT)
No apology needed---I didn't interpret your comments like that! The categorization you've done so far looks great.
Completely off-topic: has the KB style dramatically changed over the last couple of days? Suddenly everything's gone a bit 1998, and there's no Recent Changes in the navbar, and the non-watched topics are displayed on Recent Changes in the same bold font as the watched ones, so you can't tell them apart any more :-/ --Mozcerize 12:39, 17 October 2005 (PDT)
Yeah, with the new kb skin, all links are now bold. Hard on the eyes if you ask me. I wish Recent Changes would come back. Oh, and I see what you mean about the decrease in uncategorized pages. Definitely looking good! --wintogreen 16:35, 17 October 2005 (PDT)

Category:Page display

This is currently strange category. It contains many articles which are issues, so I think it makes sense for it to be a subcategory of Issues (Fx/TB/Suite), not least because it helps navigation in these Issues categories. However it also contains several articles which are not issues, but are just related to page display (e.g. Animated images). Is there a case for making Page display a subcategory of both Issues and Firefox and Mozilla Suite? --Mozcerize 02:50, 21 September 2005 (PDT)

It initially was like that: [3] --asqueella 02:59, 21 September 2005 (PDT)
Hmm, yes. Not sure what happened there :-/ Looks like I pasted the changes into the wrong category or something, given that Thunderbird is listed there too! Reverted it to how it was. --Mozcerize
It is strange. I don't know where all that stuff should go. But it should be "Page display and printing". And the one thing that definitely goes in there is PostScript Module.
I edited the #Category tree since "Page display" is now named "Websites" and is no longer an "Issues" subcategory. See Category talk:Issues (Firefox)#Websites. The name change was originally discussed at Category talk:Page display and linked from here. Alice Wyman 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Where will the tips go?

How should the articles in the "Tips" page for each product be categorized? Some have already just gone under Category:Firefox. --hao2lian

They all need to be categorized like any other article. Indeed, we've already done most of them. It's not a problem if articles get lumped into Category:Firefox. They can be factored into more specific categories later, as and when enough articles are created to justify a new subcategory. Also, I see categorization as an iterative process: no doubt some editors will just shove their article into Category:Firefox even if a more specific category exists, and it will be left to the more experienced editors to put it in the right place.
We've got to the stage now where the best way to keep a track of the few pages left that are uncategorized is via Special:Uncategorizedpages. Tips, FAQs and Issues pages can now be deprecated. All that's left to do is make sure everyone is happy with the procedure of wiping these pages and adding a follow-through link to Category:Firefox etc. However, we first intend to come up with a model of what the editable part of the category pages should look like. Perhaps it will contain links to some of the most popular articles in the category, to make it look and feel a bit more like those original tips pages. Perhaps it will be pretty bare, and left to the user to peruse the full alphabetical list of articles. Suggestions welcome. --Mozcerize 06:38, 2 October 2005 (PDT)

Categorizing Marketing articles

Most of the articles left in Special:Uncategorizedpages are related to marketing, such as the pages called "Wordsmiths/*", "Topic/*", "FANS/*" and "Article/*". What is the story with marketing on this wiki? Is it still based here or has it moved somewhere else? Anyhow, if we are to make the Special:Uncategorizedpages page useful, we need to chuck all of these articles in a category (perhaps called Category:Marketing). That way, editors can use the Special:Uncategorizedpages page to easily keep a track of any new articles that get created but uncategorized. This is impossible at the moment, because there is simply too much marketing stuff in the way to be able to find the other articles.

I suggest that we create the Marketing category, and then ask an admin to run a script which puts all articles from Special:Uncategorizedpages into that category. Then, I will hand-pick the few articles which don't belong to that category and remove them. (I don't much fancy the task of categorizing all 250 Marketing articles manually!)

--Mozcerize 02:15, 4 October 2005 (PDT)

It was deleted, but restored upon request. But it sounds like they don't need it anymore so we can probably just delete it again.--Np 07:06, 4 October 2005 (PDT)
No telling when our kb czar will be around again to do some mass deleting, so I'm going to start categorizing the marketing articles. The scriptless, primitive way. At least that will get them out of sight for the time being. --wintogreen 03:53, 22 October 2005 (PDT)
Well, that wasn't too bad. I put 157 articles into Category:Marketing. Someone might want to run through those to make sure I didn't include any non-marketing articles. That leaves 37 in the Uncategorized list. 3 of those (each with a title ending in a question mark) are actually categorized, but they refuse to disappear from the list. So that leaves 34 still to be categorized. --wintogreen 05:20, 22 October 2005 (PDT)

Problems using categories with redirects

While categorizing TB pages today and yesterday, I tested using categories with redirects. E.g., I made Newly created account does not appear in folder pane as a redirect for Global Inbox and assigned the redirect page to a category. It seemed to work fine. I saved the redirect and it showed up in the category. But later, I tried to add a second category to this same redirect, and the result was that even through both categories showed up when I previewed the edit, both categories were stripped from the redirect when I saved the page; now I can't get any categories to save in the redirect page again, no matter what I do. Same thing with Reappearing messages, which is a redirect for Compacting folders. Check the redirect page histories and you'll see that the first versions still show functioning categories. Very weird. I hope someone can figure out how to fix this. --wintogreen 22:08, 17 October 2005 (PDT)

I believe Asqueella also experimented with redirecting to category pages, and came up against similar problems. I don't think he found any way to fix this apart from manually adding a link to the category page. --Mozcerize 05:21, 18 October 2005 (PDT)
So, you can't redirect to a category or categorize a redirect. Sure enough: [4] and [5]. --wintogreen 05:48, 18 October 2005 (PDT)

Update to the Rules/Categories page

I did some work to help get that page ready for release to the masses, since then we can link to it on the main Rules page (instead of linking to this messy Talk page). Please have a look, make changes where you feel necessary, etc. Now that we're implementing categories, we might as well have a real page to inform people about how to do it! --wintogreen 05:15, 19 October 2005 (PDT)

Looks fine, thanks for doing it! --asqueella 07:55, 21 October 2005 (PDT)

Which features are worthy of categorization?

I don't think people will be looking at the Issues category because they're looking for help with a specific feature, but it was decided that every issue should be in the Issues category and its own semantic category. Fine, I can live with that. But the semantic categories have to be feature-specific and visible on the main category page of the app to which they belong. If I have a problem with the location bar, I'm looking for Firefox -> Location Bar -> List of problems. I'm not looking to get Firefox -> Issues -> List of issues which I have to traverse to find location bar-specific issues. Sure, Firefox -> Location Bar -> List of problems would still work if Location Bar was a regular page, but this just adds to maintenance because every location bar article would have to be cross-linked with the master. Also, if it was not a category, non-issue articles relating to the feature might have to go to the main application category so that they're categorized in any way, which would just add to the clutter instead of reducing it. Others disagree. Discuss. I figure this paragraph is a little rambly, so let me make an example. Here's how it works currently

Category: Firefox -> Category: Issues (Firefox) -> Issue A
Category: Preferences -> Preference B related to feature X
Category: Firefox -> Feature X
Category: Firefox -> Tip C related to Feature X
(Feature X includes manually made links to Issue A, Preference B, and Tip C and vice versa)

How I want it to work:

Category: Firefox -> Category: Issues (Firefox) -> Issue A
Category: Preferences -> Preference B related to Feature X
Category: Firefox -> Category: Feature X -> Issue A related to Feature X
                                         -> Preference B related to Feature X
                                         -> Tip C related to Feature X
(Feature X includes automatically made links to Issue A, Preference B, and Tip C and vice versa)

And any major feature would be deserving of its own category (Tabbed browsing, View Source, Location Bar would all get categories, but "open links in new tab" would be subordinate to Tabbed browsing). As you can see, this actually reduces the number of entries on the main Firefox page (current: Feature X and Tip C, proposed: Category: Feature X) and is much easier to maintain.--Np 19:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't what you're proposing essentially the same as what we've already been doing (as with Category:Bookmarks)? The main difference would seem to be that most of the existing categories are named after functions or user actions (searching, customizing, migrating, installing) rather than features per se. Tabbed browsing was proposed as a category earlier (see Talk:Rules/Categories/Firefox); as I recall, the only reason it wasn't made into a category was that it didn't have enough articles. Location Bar would make sense to me as a category, on the same level as the Bookmarks category, using the six articles linked in the "See also" section minus Search Bar and with about:config thrown in as well. I'm not so sure about Category: View Source as a category, though. To me, it would be similar to having a "Links" category, which could include all the links-related preferences plus Links to local pages don't work, which... now that I think about it, might not be a bad category after all. ;) Anyone else? --wintogreen 08:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you understand what I'm proposing. Essentially I'm saying "we should feel free to add categories for features rather than sticking to the existing categories". Functions vs features Some things are good to categorize as functions (migrating, installing) because people don't think of them as features (migrator, installer). For other things, especially those that are essentially UI elements (location bar) are not thought of as functions (entering addresses). Tabbed browsing category Now that we have one article for every pref, along with customizations (moving the tab bar), issues, extensions, etc, that's a lot of things that could go in there. View Source category View Source can be thought of as a feature. It has a window, it has UI elements, and it has configurable settings. Why would we make it an article rather than a category? Just to be clear, the category would include information about the view source feature, not what the source itself means. Links category A links category would be bad because it's just too ambiguous. Is it a category full of links? Is it a category about links? If you could come up with a name that would clearly define what it dealt with, it'd be fine by me.--Np 21:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of these points but not without reservation. BTW, the existing categories were certainly never meant to be exhaustive; I'll be happy to see the number of KB articles increase and the number of categories increase with it. And I like the idea of having "one category per feature" as a rule of thumb. However, there are some important considerations. (I use "View Source" as an example below simply because it has already been raised, and its specificity highlights the points that I think are important.)
(1.) I don't think we gain anything by creating a category with very few articles unless its parent category is itself very specific; it makes the navigation process cumbersome. We originally came to the conclusion that a category should only be created when there are a significant number of articles available to place into it. For me, this certainly rules out a "View Source" category at the current time, simply because there aren't any articles about it at all! (Although if it were to be placed in a much narrower parent category then I would change my mind.) I'm sure you've already noticed that I've ignored the preferences articles. Indeed, I don't think the preferences articles should count towards the total. This isn't because I don't like them :-) I do, and I think they're useful. But I'll explain my opinion in a moment…
(2.) I definitely think we should make sure that all subcategories of a given category have an equal level of specificity. This was also a conclusion we arrived at earlier. The reason is simple: it makes for a confusing user experience to find extremely specific categories such as "View Source" sitting next to extremely general categories such as "Profile". (Think about how a table of contents in a large reference book is organised.) This idea ties in with Point 1. Instead, highly specific subcategories should be embedded at a deeper level. "View Source" is a tricky one, and highlights one of the problems with the current proposal, namely where to put it! I want to avoid vague-sounding categories like "Features", because these are real time-wasters. When navigating a tree, nobody wants to have to look inside a vague category just to find out what it contains so that they can rule it out from their search. This would take us back to the nightmare days of the Tips pages that we've all worked hard to abandon! So where would "View Source" go? Perhaps we could have a "Menu items" category which houses all features which can be reached from the menus. Or we could have a "User interface features" category which would also house things like Location Bar, Find-as-you-type etc. This is a non-trivial problem to solve, and it will require some thought and discussion.
(3.) We should minimize the number of direct subcategories of any given category. Again, this is to aid navigation. I don't think we've helped navigation if we've created 36 direct subcategories of Firefox, because it takes forever to read through them in the category listing. Again, this ties in with my earlier points, and is again why I wouldn't like to see "View source" or "location bar" as direct subcategories of Firefox. They should be subcategories of a more specific category.
(4.) The prefs articles are for more advanced users, and (of course) they have strange titles which could be confusing for novice users. I think they could be distracting if they were scattered amongst the other user support articles in any given category. What could we do about this? Perhaps have a little prefs subcategory of each category? Sounds like an overkill, but I can't really see any other options.
(5.) If we've got a few Tabbed browsing articles, I'm happy to see a category for it. It's general enough so that it could be a direct subcategory of Firefox for now. I agree with Np about the Links thing though; we'd need to be more specific in the name.
--Mozcerize 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Extra categories I think you're overestimating the amount of confusion extra categories would bring. When people come to the categories list, they usually know what they're looking for and can find it quickly - it's not like they have to read each one to determine whether it applies to them. It's the same way that if a phone book had twice as many entries, it would not be twice as hard to find something. If someone doesn't know what they're looking for, they're doing a search anyway. Placing feature categories in another category I completely disagree with this idea. As you said, vague categories help no one. If I'm looking for a problem - any problem, I'm not going to think to look into a "features" category or anything of the like. And if I do, it's just wasting my time to have to load an extra page to see what's in there. Navigation hierarchy should be kept as short as possible. Specificity I don't see how you say a View Source category is more specific than a Profile category. I see them as being on an equal footing - they're both features of Firefox. Just because Profiles has more articles doesn't mean it's less specific. Pref subcategories Same complaint as with a feature sub-category - extra navigation for no gain. The worst that could happen without the extra categories is a user clicks on a weirdly named preference, doesn't understand the article, and leaves. I'd rather have preferences not categorised into feature categories than have a preference subcategory for every feature. Number of articles in category I can understand not wanting a category for View Source because it just doesn't have enough (any) sub-articles. The idea would be that View Source is a perfectly valid category if there were enough articles to warrant a category. But this doesn't apply to Location Bar. In summary Making the hierarchy tree taller - bad. Making the hierarchy tree wider - good.--Np 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I love the two competing metaphors: table of contents in a reference book vs. index-style listing in a telephone book. The very use of categories in the kb means a combination of both, of course, but I'm leaning towards Np's view that flatter is better. I say this partly out of my experience in working with the TB categories these past months. Inside the main TB category, there's a Mail subcategory, and inside that there are 6 subcategories (Address Book, Composing messages, Displaying & printing messages, etc.). This organizational scheme is very neat and tidy, but I don't think there's any real benefit for kb users; it just seems to force people to click more links and scan more pages for the articles they want. If this were a table of contents in a printed book it would be very different because you'd be able to see all the categories and subcategories at once, making it very easy to scan for information; unfortunately, it doesn't work like that in the kb, with the result that the deeper the category structure is, the more clicking you have to do, and the more cumbersome it is to work with. In this sense I actually miss the old TB FAQs page!
So what categories are worthy of being direct subcategories of the main application category? Even though my own gut reaction when I first saw View Source in the main Firefox category was "What on earth is that doing there?!", I think it's best if we try to not have any prejudice about which features/functions are major or minor, and let the actual content of the kb decide that for us. (I'm using major/minor because I don't believe there's anything that makes Location Bar or View Source inherently less "specific" than Bookmarks or Profiles.) If the feature/function accumulates a certain critical mass of kb articles, then it is a viable category and is "major" within the context of the kb. Accordingy, I don't see why Location Bar (which would have at least 6 articles to make a category), for instance, should not be sitting alongside Bookmarks (5 articles now) in the main Firefox category. Unless there's a compelling reason to not put a feature/function category directly into the main application category, then why not put it there? Excessive clutter certainly could be a compelling reason, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point yet where that's a real concern. --wintogreen 15:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it was just jarring seeing View Source there because it was the first one to be put in, so it stuck out against the pre-decided categories. As I said, I'm fine it not being there from a "not enough articles in it" view.--Np 19:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to buy most of your arguments. I think flatter probably is better in the short term at least, not least because you can't see the whole of the tree at once, as pointed out. I still maintain that minor features from the menus (and of course I'm guessing here as to what is "minor"; personally I use View Source all the time, but I would hazard a guess that my mother doesn't ;-) are different from major components and problem-causers such as Installation and upgrade, Profiles and so on, regardless of number of articles. [I was probably wrong in rating these features by "specificity"; I think perhaps page visitor stats is the best metric.] As a result, I think that certain key categories could be "highlighted" on the Firefox page. To this end, I propose that the "popular" categories be mentioned briefly in the editable area. Now I think about it, wasn't this the original plan? To promote really popular articles and categories in this area? What do you think about this?
I'm not totally against the idea of a View Source category; I just think it probably needs more articles before it's worth creating. And as I said, I have no problem with categories for Location Bar, Tabbed Browsing etc. --Mozcerize 09:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made Location Bar a category. It did raise one interesting question: Location Bar was originally an article. But now it's a category. So do we actually need the original article any more? It was a short one, and I have copied the text directly into the editable area of the category. Have a look at both the category and the article, and discuss which you prefer. I prefer the category, and would delete the article. (For some categories I don't think this would be appropriate, but for those which document a "hands-on" feature, I think it could be.) --Mozcerize 09:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mozcerize, I think I prefer Location Bar as a category. It would be similar to Category:Plugins, which I think works very well. In general, I don't think it would hurt for any of the categories to have some introductory text about the feature/function. What do you think about adding about:config and about protocol links to the category? --wintogreen 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that would hurt either. I'm fine with your suggestion regarding the "about" articles. --Mozcerize

Flattening the Thunderbird categories

As an extension of the above discussion, what does anyone think about flattening the Thunderbird categories a bit? Namely: (1) get rid of the Mail category and (2) get rid of the subcategories within Issues. The reason, as noted above, is that although these deeper categories look fine on paper and worked well enough in the old Thunderbird : FAQs and Thunderbird : Issues pages, I don't think they have any real benefit in the kb because you can't view the whole (expanded) tree at once, with the result that you simply have to do more clicking and page viewing. I myself find that the relatively "deep" structure here makes it more cumbersome and time-consuming to use. If flattened, the results would be as follows:

(1) The Mail category would disappear, and its 6 subcategories would be pushed up into the main Thunderbird category, which would make a total of 17 subcategories at that level. The 17 uncategorized Mail articles would likewise become uncategorized Thunderbird articles, for a total of 46 articles at that level.

(2) The 2 subcategories within Issues would disappear, and their 18 or so articles (some are in both subcategories) would join the 14 articles in the main TB Issues category.

Thoughts, anyone? --wintogreen 13:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with this; you're probably the best person to decide about the TB area. Do whatever needs to be done to make it easy for people to find what they are looking for! Please change the category tree at the top of this page, though. --Mozcerize
I went ahead and did this with the Issues articles and subcategories. Maybe will do the Mail articles/subcategories later. --wintogreen 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if these comments are in the wrong section but this web page is very confusing for somebody who has not been following its progress. I just discovered that the three sections for Thunderbird have been collapsed to a full and a partial alphabetical based hierarchy. I have a terrible time finding anything now. It was very usefull to be able to visually browse a list with one-line descriptions of the articles. There is a big difference between reducing the number of sections and fundamentally changing how you navigate. I am much more concerned about the latter.

Its also not clear who this change was supposed to benefit.

1. Most users never browse the knowledge base (they don't even know it exists). However, prolific posters such as myself are constantly posting pointers to articles in it, and had muscle memory of exactly where certain articles were. Having to enter some keywords in a search field to find knowledge base articles (including ones I've written) is a big step backwards. It wasn't a big deal having some articles written for just Thunderbird and other written for multiple products as long as everything you found when looking for help on Thunderbird dealt with Thunderbird. However, now when I dive down the list of all Thunderbird articles to "privacy and security" for example there are lots of articles that don't apply to Thunderbird at all (or even mention its existence).

2. "Basic e-mail account configuration (a guide for beginners)" for example used to be easy for anybody to find. However, with the re-org it looks like its not available if you select Frequently encountered issues. You have to goto "All Thunderbird articles", then "Mail (Thunderbird)", then "E-mail account setup (Thunderbird)" and then "Getting started with Thunderbird". I don't understand why the getting started information has to be so low in the hierarchy. Getting started information should be staring you in the face - you shouldn't have to hunt for it and guess what keywords did the person organizing this choose. I have the same concern about some other articles (compacting, webmail, importing mail) that you really want any new user to stumble across.

Am I the only person contributing to the knowledge base who was barely aware this web page even existed and didn't know they needed to monitor it every week in order to lobby against major changes like the one that just occurred? I don't understand why there wasn't some attempt at outreach. Not just for whether the changes were a good idea or not, but also to solicit input on what articles needed to be really easy to find.

tanstaafl 06:25AM, 11 December 2005 PMT

Hi Tanstaafl. I share some of your concerns, most of all the lack of a logical order that was present with the old FAQs page. There, the subsection "E-mail account setup" was at the top of the page, and the first article listed in there was the "Getting started" one. That kind of ordering makes sense, and it's completely lost with the use of categories as the sole ordering device.
That said, the transition to categories (talked about and worked on since February) is still in progress, and one of the issues that has to be worked out is what we can do to improve the navigation experience. For instance, someone recently suggested putting a "top 10" list in the editable area of the category page. Another idea would be to manually maintain a long, easily viewed list of articles like Thunderbird : FAQs. I purposely did not delete the existing contents of that article (like I did with Thunderbird : Tips) in case someone wants to do that. The main problem with that approach is that it depends on someone to make sure that each and every article is listed, and who's going to do that? Until you started contributing, it was basically a one-man show around here; there's not exactly a large pool of volunteers who are going to step up and take care of a list like that.
Also, keep in mind that the existing category structure is not set in stone. This should be clear enough from the changes I just made with the TB Issues articles--i.e., getting rid of 2 subcategories there because they didn't work as well in practice as they did on paper. Things can be changed. This goes for the "Privacy and security" articles too. We could easily make a Thunderbird-specific version of that category and then re-edit the handful of TB articles that belong in it.
As for "outreach"... well, feel free. In the past I've dropped numerous hints in the forums that people could come on into the kb and make edits or contribute information directly to TB articles, but the response has been lackluster at best. Even among the regulars in the kb, it's hard to get anyone to chime in on the TB articles. Anyway, the transition to categories wasn't an overnight occurrence. It's been under discussion for 10 months, and that's plenty of time for anyone to voice their opinions. --wintogreen 17:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
My response to the two comments above can be found below Taanstaafl's next comment. --Mozcerize 11:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Going with the assumption that you're sticking solely with categories as the sole ordering device and three columns for now, some suggestions.

(1) The frequently encountered issues section assumes the reader knows a lot more than most do. Some of the selections are really the names of answers, not a description of a problem. For example, a new user can not tell by looking at "Compacting folders" that you should read that article if your inbox folder is getting bloated and/or taking a real long time to open. I suggest we remove about half the articles from that page and replace them with some new articles that are basicly a very simple logic diagram to help them select the appropiate article for several related issues. That would make the issues section more usefull without having to write some all inclusive troubleshooting guide. This change could be done in increments.

(2) Rather than adding something like a top 10 list in the knowledgebase I suggest we replace all of the stickies at the top of the thunderbird forums with a single sticky. It would have some short text that basicly replaces whatever is important in the current multiple stickies, plus a top 10 questions list. One downside is you'd have to get a moderator to update that (skopische and myself could do without asking based on what we see in the thunderbird forums). One upside is it gives visibility to both the knowledge base and answers for the top 10 issues when most people have never even heard of the knowledge base.

If this sounds good to you I'll check with some of the other moderators to verify they don't have a problem with me doing that.

(3) Add some more thunderbird specific subcategories so that when you're looking for a Thunderbird article you're quarenteed that something in each article deals with Thunderbird. For example, I shouldn't find "Distro does security fix" and the "Mozilla Suite : FAQ" articles when looking in privacy and security.

(4) Nobody should have to dive down several levels to find "getting started with Thunderbird" in "All thunderbird articles" Is there any reason why we can't add it as a top level article while still keeping the existing link to it within "Mail (Thunderbird)" -> "E-mail account setup (Thunderbird)"? I'm suggesting this just for articles that its important that it be very easy to locate. See (7) for a different solution.

(5) Add some subcategory for advice for beginners to prevent them from shooting themselves in the foot. Since it would target new users it might suggest things such as regularly compact your folders and don't permanently store messages in your inbox without all of the alternatives/details you'd give a more knowledgeable user. We could try to do this in the getting started section but the user is probably already overwhelmed trying to get things working. This is meant for a new user who managed to get Thunderbird to work but doesn't know enough yet to keep it working.

(6) A couple articles such as profile backup and profile folder have become far less usable over time because they try to deal with three or four applications. This causes so much visual clutter and has so many references to other applications that the user gets overwhelmed. I suggest we provide Thunderbird specific replacements for a few of these articles where we initially just get rid of every reference to the other applications from the current article. I understand the idea behind having one common article, but we shouldn't keep it when its not working.

(7) lists the articles in category Thunderbird, but that list actually ignores most of the Thunderbird articles. Right now the page is a intro paragraph followed by subcategories followed by articles in the thunderbird category. Could we add links to a few key articles such as "getting started" at the top of the page (before the subcategories) and actually list all of the Thunderbird articles in "Articles in category Thunderbird", not just the current 27?

From a users point of view if a web page states its displaying the articles for category Thunderbird they'd expect it to list all of the Thunderbird articles, regardless of the technical definition of a category. Adding a few key articles at the very top of the page would also help address some of the concerns with the logical order. -- tanstaafl 02:05 AM, 12 December 2005 PMT

Hi everyone. In response to Taanstafl's original comment, I think there are a couple of things worth noting:
a) Users will hopefully start becoming more aware of the KB now that it's linked to directly from the Support areas of the, and promoted ahead of the forums.
b) The only articles which have been renamed are those with very poor titles—and these titles now redirect to the new ones. Hence all existing URLs provided in forum posts etc. are still valid. Additionally, I hope that the current categories are logically-named so that articles should be easy to track down, even if that now involves scanning the alphabetical list in the appropriate subcategory. rather than scanning a manually-created list in the appropriate FAQs/Tips/Issues page.
c) The Privacy and security category was one which I suggested above to be split into separate "Privacy and security (Thunderbird)"-style categories as and when necessary. Feel free to make this change.
d) The major problem addressed by the move to categories is that it was very difficult to maintain the FAQs, Tips and Issues pages manually. There were many articles which were not on any of these lists, and many articles on two or even all three. This meant that one was forced to search rather than navigate (since navigating would mean reading all three pages in their entirity, and still searching to ensure that nothing is missed). With the new system—while not yet perfect—users can both search and navigate efficiently if they need to do so. Moreover, users have a choice of navigation methods: semantic then alphabetic (list of all subcategories followed by list of all articles) and importance-driven (editable lists at the top of the category pages—see next point).
e) The issue that Tanstaafl raises is important, and has also been discussed before. The alphabetization of the articles and subcategories within a category means that all logical or importance-driven sorting is lost. It has been proposed since the conception of categories 9 months ago to use the editable part at the top of each category page to maintain a manual list of the essential articles such as the introductory ones that Tanstaafl has mentioned. This has not yet been done precisely because those of us who conceived the category system would rather hand the responsibility for choosing the appropriate articles to the people who modify the existing FAQ/tips lists the most—people including Alice and Tanstaafl.
f) I second Wintogreen's comment that communication between the KB people and and Forums people—accepting that there are a key handful of people who take an interest in both—has been attempted, and I too would describe the response as lacklustre. But to echo Wintogreen's closing sentiment, all changes and suggestions are, as always, fully open to discussion. I think all the regular contributers to this page would like to see people such as Taanstafl and Alice involved in the debate. --Mozcerize 10:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Taanstafl's second comments:
  • Response to (1): FAQs could be transferred to the editable part of the category, as per suggestion above. The same holds for Issues. Note that some FAQs are best reworded as question rather than answer, as Tanstaafl suggests. Others, however, were no better than what the categorization automatically provides. Hence only some of the FAQs need be listed at the top of each category.
  • Response to (2): a sticky in the forum linking to the top FAQs and Issues would be great. That holds for all MozApps.
  • Response to (3) (Thunderbird-specific Privacy and security articles): see my point (c) above.
  • Response to (4) (Finding intro articles): same as my first point here, or point (e) above.
  • Response to (5): I'm not sure about a "getting started" category yet. Perhaps a "getting started" article is enough to begin with.
  • Response to (6): I don't think Profile backup is overloaded with references to different apps. Profile Folder is more problematic. But reading through it, many of the difficulties arise because the article is badly worded. And there's no reason to put the Mozilla Suite as the first listed app in each section. Deal with the apps in order of popularity (Firefox, TB, Suite). Let's discuss this article separately. Also, the trouble with statements such as "it's not working" is that they're really hard to evaluate! There have been many times when I've wished for some kind of user feedback machanism for the KB structure and forum structure.
  • Response to (7) (Articles in subcategories not listed in category): This is a "feature" of MediaWiki, and irritates me, too. I did put a sentence at the top of each category stating that the articles listed in the category are additionaly to the ones found in subcategories.
--Mozcerize 11:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Also in response to tanstaafl's 7 points above:
(1) One early idea was to create redirects to articles like "Compacting folders" so that the issue would be more clearly expressed in the title (such as "Inbox file is enormous even though it's empty"), and then categorize these redirects so that they will show up as links in the appropriate categories. Unfortunately, we found, the wiki doesn't allow you to categorize a redirect. Try categorizing Reappearing messages and you'll see what I mean. It's a known MediaWiki bug, and hopefully it'll be fixed someday. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "logic diagram" for Issues articles, but feel free to give it a try and see how it works. Keep in mind, though, that if we remove an article from the Issues category, it still has to be categorized somewhere.
FYI, the wiki installed on has tweaks that allow categorizing redirects and also redirecting to a http:// link (which could replace manual redirects to category pages). It should be possible to install those tweaks here. --asqueella 14:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
asqueella, do your magic! --wintogreen 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, most I can do is to try to figure out what changes were done in devmo wiki (I have it installed locally). I imagine, getting kerz to install those tweaks would be hard. --asqueella 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
(2) Perfectly fine with me.
(3) Already addressed above.
(4) As suggested above, why not put this in the editable area of the category page? Give it a try, see how it works. Also see my suggestion at the start of this section about flattening the TB categories by gettting rid of the Mail subcategory and pushing all of its subcategories up.
(5) See Talk:Rules/Categories/March 2005 (do a search for "basics") for earlier discussion on the idea of creating a "Basics" category. I think a better solution would be to create a single article ("Thunderbird basics" or "Things every Thunderbird user should know" or some such) with a manually constructed set of links to other articles (Profile backup, Compacting folders, Multiple SMTP servers, etc.), and then give that article prominent placement within the forums and/or the category page.
(6) Basically I agree with you here, but it might be best to start a separate discussion about this in a more appropriate Talk page (maybe Talk:In-house style), since it's only indirectly related to categories.
(7) It might be worth checking in the MediaWiki documentation to see if there's a bug open for this, at least so we can keep an eye on it.
--wintogreen 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. My todo list:

  • Add links to some key articles at the top of the all thunderbird articles page, including getting started with Thunderbird and a guide to how to keep things working. Create a thread in the thunderbird support forum to discuss what should be in the latter and what to call it.
  • Check with some other moderators to see if they have a problem using a single sticky that includes a top ten list in the thunderbird support forum, and unless they have a problem do that.
  • It sounds like its a problem replacing some issues articles with simplistic troubleshooting guides that point to the replaced article, since the issue article still has to be in some category. I'll figure out something after I learn about the templates you're using.
  • Per wintogreens suggestion discuss the issues about the profile and backup pages in
  • Create a "Privacy and security (Thunderbird)" category .

-- tanstaafl 05:05 PM, 12 December 2005 PMT

Highlighting "popular" categories/articlies on the main application page

This is also coming from the above discussion, where Mozcerize said:

...I think that certain key categories could be "highlighted" on the Firefox page. To this end, I propose that the "popular" categories be mentioned briefly in the editable area. Now I think about it, wasn't this the original plan? To promote really popular articles and categories in this area? What do you think about this?

Response: I can't remember what the original idea was, but right now there are so few categories within the main Firefox category that I can't really see the point of highlighting the most popular ones. Instead of categories, how about hightlighting the top 10 most frequently viewed articles related to Firefox? As of today, this would be Profile folder, about:config entries, Uninstall search plugins, Profile backup, Browser will not start up, Moving your proifle folder, Uninstalling extensions, about:config, Safe Mode, and Default browser. (Not a very exciting list, but that's what turns up at Special:Popularpages.) I'm not sure if such a top 10 list would look better in the editable area of the category itself or linked as a separate article, perhaps as a replacement for Firefox : FAQs. --wintogreen 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with looking at the top 10 most frequently viewed is that it's total page views forever, not what's most popular now.--Np 15:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, we have to take the top 10 list with a pinch of salt. I don't think we really need to highlight anything at the moment because, as you say, there aren't many Fx categories. When more are added, we can have a rethink. --Mozcerize 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding about:config preference articles to feature categories

This would be a handy way of seeing all the preferences related to a feature, with the downside of possibly confusing someone who doesn't understand them. Personally, I think the worst that can happen is someone won't understand an article and ignore it, and the best that can happen is that someone will find just the functionality they're looking for, so I'd be all for this idea. --Np 17:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. If we are going to have feature-specific categories then there's no point in leaving the pref articles out. --Mozcerize 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the rule of thumb is thus that the preferences articles should not "count" toward determining whether there are enough articles to make a category, but once the category is created they should go into it. Sound right? --wintogreen 02:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup.--Np 15:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When switching an article to a category...

Don't vfd the article. Just make it a manual redirect to the category so that the URL lives forever. Agreed? --Np 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye, and the same would go for pages that have been moved/renamed. A lot of forum threads link to kb articles and quite a few third-party sites do as well. Hopefully someday the wiki bug about redirecting to a category will be fixed [6]. --wintogreen 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
To make the Special:Uncategorizedpages page more user-friendly it would be good if all redirects could be removed from the list. I am toying with the idea of creating a Redirects category purely for this purpose. Check out the Location Bar article to see what this would look like in practice. Any comments? --Mozcerize 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel kinda iffy creating a category to get around a bug in the Wiki just so we can blank out that page, but the worst that could happen is it's a bit of work. --Np 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure from your comment whether you're against this category or not! I would say that it would purely be a housekeeping category, like the others in Category:MozillaZine Knowledge Base organization and I don't think it would do any harm. It wouldn't mean anything to KB visitors, and it would make editors' lives easier. --Mozcerize 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Translation: "do it if you want, but I'm not going to help you". --Np 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it'd come in handy later when (if) that wiki bug gets fixed, since we won't have to hunt down all the manual redirects. --wintogreen 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new category:Alphabetical list of articles (Firefox)

If we had Category:Alphabetical list of articles (Firefox), Category:Alphabetical list of articles (Thunderbird), etc., could we get links on the front page, right here: [7]? For this to work, all articles would have to be in those categories. Then, no matter how badly we organized the site, people could always find an article. Is this worth doing?

The problem is that many articles are sentences and the first word doesn't relate to the topic, like "Can't..." or "Using..." so they'd be hard to find. There'd also be no automated way of telling if we missed any articles.--Np 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We have that problem now, so how would this be any worse? At least we would have a complete list of articles at one level so users could find them all without having to search the whole tree. The essential feature is not so much that it be alphabetical but that it be complete.
To put all articles on the list it would have to be an understood (i.e. prominently displayed) rule that every article must be listed in the alphabetical category. Again, is this any worse than the current situation? Do we even have an automated way of catching all articles now? Does every article have to be listed in at least one category? Can we even find all articles? --AnotherGuest. 22 Aug 06
It's worse because it's effort for no gain. Yes, we do have a way of catching pages now. We even already have an automated list of all articles, though not split by app.--Np 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. I'm not sure how many of the ~900 articles are really about Firefox, but it would be painful. Seemed like a good idea at the time. --AnotherGuest. 24 Aug 06

Preference subcategories

I'm wondering if it's better to have preference subcategories like in Category:Privacy and security or put it directly in the category like in Category:Tabbed browsing. I prefer to have a flatter hierarchy, but I can see how category's real articles could get swamped by all the pref articles.--Np 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to group all preferences together in a separate category to prevent the user-support articles from getting lost. If you want to create preference subcategories like Category:Security and privacy-related preferences under Category:Privacy and security I would suggest naming the subcategory so that it starts with "Preferences", e.g., Category:Preferences related to Privacy and security or simply Category:Preferences - Privacy and security, one reason being that it would group all the "Preferences" categories together alphabetically on the Special:Categories page. Another option would be to create subcategories for the Category:Preferences articles that correspond to the subheadings in the about:config entries article, such as Category:Preferences - Accessibility Category:Preferences - Advanced, ... - Alerts, etc. Alice Wyman 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think how things are listed in Special:Categories is really much of a concern... I don't like the subheadings in about:config for this purpose because they're not always on one subject and one subject could be divided across many categories. It might be good as a solution to not having a 1000-article category.--Np 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The Special:Categories listing was just an example. Having all Preferences subcategories start with "Preferences" will group all those categories together wherever they are displayed, for example, in the Category:Configuration page listing as subcategories, if you want to do away with Category:Preferences containing 200+ articles and just have subcategories for preferences, which is what I understood you wanted to do. In any case, my main point was to group all preferences articles by themselves, in a "Preferences" category or "Preferences - xxx"sub-categories. Alice Wyman 21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about categories like Category:Security and privacy-related preferences, where the preference exists in both that category and the big category. The order that these categories appears in is not an issue because the only place that has more than one category is the big one.--Np 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll start over. You want to keep the big preferences category with 200+ articles and keep adding to it (right now it's two pages, which is why I thought you wanted to split it up) but you want to also place some of those preference articles in additional categories. My first suggestion still stands: I think it's better to group all preference articles together in a separate category to prevent the user-support articles from getting lost. I still think that the subcategory names should begin with "Preferences", as in "Category:Preferences - Privacy and security" since there is no reason not to name it that way and it makes it easier to identify it as a "preferences" subcategory without having to read the whole category description and guess that "Category:Security and privacy-related preferences" actually contains "preferences" articles and not something else. Alice Wyman 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you decide to do about the preference subcategories issue as long as you leave the application specific (sub)categories alone. Thunderbird doesn't have a top level preferences category and its various preference subcategories all fit on one page. It works fine. Please don't create some new rule or style that mucks with it. Tanstaafl 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Connecting to the Internet (shared with all apps)

To include firewall, Autoconnect, Can't connect, etc. Comments?--AnotherGuest. 24 Aug 06

I found four or five articles that might fit that category. Are those articles enough for a separate category and do people think that it would be better than how the articles are currently categorized?
  1. Firewalls is under Category:Issues (Firefox) Category:Issues (Mozilla Suite) and Category: Issues (Thunderbird)
  2. Error loading websites is also under the Firefox and Mozilla Suite "Issues" categories.
  3. Autoconnect is under Category:Mozilla Suite and Category:Startup - Firefox.
  4. Suddenly can't connect is under Category:Issues (Thunderbird) and Category:Sending and receiving mail (Thunderbird)
  5. Connections established on startup - Firefox might possibly fit. although that's debatable, and it is also listed under Category:Startup - Firefox.
I would tend to leave things as is. Alice Wyman 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing saying we can't have articles in more than one semantic category (we have a lot of articles already like that). So basically the only downside that adding a category could have would be giving the users a useless or confusing choice. I don't believe "Connecting to the Internet" would be useless or confusing.--Np 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as you don't move articles out of the "Issues" or other appropriate categories, then I wouldn't be against adding any of the above articles into an additional "Connecting to the Internet" category. Alice Wyman 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Category:Issues (Firefox) and Category:Issues (Mozilla Suite) have only existing subcategory and Category: Issues (Thunderbird) has none. Adding one more is harmless, but I'm concerned with such a low threshold somebody is going to then argue for several more issues subcategories, and as it snowballs we get into arguments whether the top category should only show all of the issues that aren't in subcategories etc. So, I suggest we leave things as is. Tanstaafl 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Adding one more is harmless, but I'm concerned with such a low threshold somebody is going to then argue for several more issues subcategories, The #Category_tree lists "Category:Connecting to the Internet" under the main Firefox, Thunderbird and Mozilla Suite categories, not under "Issues". (Right now, the only "Issues" subcategory is "Page display" for Firefox and Mozilla Suite with Thunderbird having no "Issues" subcategories.) I understood Np to mean that you can have the same article listed in multiple categories, with the exception that you could not list the same article in a subcategory and in the corresponding parent category (when an article is put into category A, it shouldn’t be put into "parent" categories of A. - Rules/Categories#Categorizing_articles) --Alice Wyman 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant.--Np 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. New category added to Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla Suite. First four topics added. Entries removed from parent categories. Issues does need to be broken up into smaller pieces, and "Connecting to the Internet" probably does need to be a separate category in Issues (Firefox) etc., but for now, the new category is left at a higher level. --AnotherGuest.

Comments on reorganizing Category:Firefox

are in the Category:Firefox discussion. This page is pretty long, so I have put most of it there.--AnotherGuest. 24 Aug 06

Top level categories

Currently included in the Category:Top level are 10 subcategories, including

The top-level Category:General concepts was briefly discussed in Category talk:Firefox and some articles were suggested to be moved there. I also noticed that the article Product comparison matrix was recently moved out of the "Firefox" category (why?) and currently remains in the "Introduction" "Mozilla Suite" and Thunderbird" categories. The reason I bring up these top level categories is because, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any way that a user can find included articles for Category:General concepts or Category:Introduction by browsing the KB, as I don't see them linked on the main page and, being that they are the same level as "Firefox" Mozilla Suite" and "Thunderbird", they wouldn't be listed under those categories. Np mentioned in the Firefox discussion, ... The idea that I'm seeing as that people don't arrive at these articles directly, but rather when linked to from another article.' I think that's a good reason to avoid placing articles in these two categories without also including a Firefox Thunderbird or Mozilla Suite category, if you want users to be able to find the articles by browsing the KB. Alice Wyman 23:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"I also noticed that the article Product comparison matrix was recently moved out of the "Firefox" category (why?) and currently remains in the "Introduction" "Mozilla Suite" and Thunderbird" categories."
Why? I don't know where it belongs, but it sure doesn't belong there, in my opinion. It doesn't belong in Mozilla Suite or Thunderbird either, but I don't want to get started cleaning those up. Category:Firefox was so cluttered no one could find anything. I don't think we should automatically include in Category:Firefox every article that just happens to mention Fx. There are other articles that tell about the various Mozilla products, project code names, etc., and they all need to be lumped together in the same place.
"I don't see any way that a user can find included articles for Category:General concepts or Category:Introduction by browsing the KB...." Yep. Some of them can be reached from KB > Other Mozilla-based applications > Summary of Mozilla products. That article "Summary of Mozilla products" could be replaced by a new category, which would include the article and the other articles on comparison of products.
For that matter, I don't see how to reach the Top Level either.??? It's not linked to anything, and doesn't seem to appear on the front page. --AnotherGuest.
I removed the the product comparison matrix from all categories but introduction. I've never run across anybody who has actually used that article. I don't see the need for yet another category ("Comparison of Mozilla products") just to make things tidy. Its the only product comparison article I can find.
I vfd'd Category:General concepts and Category:Introduction . I suggest we continue a discussion of what to do about them at Pages_voted_for_deletion . Is Category:Top level a necessary root or is it just another category that happens to be at the top of the hierarchy? Tanstaafl 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:General concepts

In the event that this category is removed (as proposed above), or if we just want to do away with some of the included articles, we can create a new "General concepts" article, as I've done here: User:Alice_Wyman/Proposed_article. The individual articles like HTML CSS and RSS can then be redirected to the new "General concepts" article, which can placed in the related categories for Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. Alice Wyman 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)