{...} if you start rethinking how categories ought to work, it could mean significant rework of multiple templates. I don't think the coding in them is tooooo complex, but if you're new to that, it would be very easy to break things.

Click to expand...

I'm a user over at wikipedia and have done structural work there, including reworking of and creation of semicomplex templates, I've ported several wikipedia templates to other mediawiki installations (for instance, DigitalNoise wiki when it was running, and to my own MediaWiki install which I had running some time back) - template code isn't likely to fritz my head terribly. That said, if I run into any problems, I'll be sure to consult with someone competent before doing anything that could potentially cause breakage.

I do have some ideas for how categories should work, but they're largely frontend ideas - it shouldn't be too necessary to modify your current magic unless i just need More Magic to do things with. It could be the lack of content that had me confused too. I recall Scott Baret had proposed writing some articles on educational software - they haven't materialised yet, but I could probably take a trip down memory lane and see if I can remember any of the educational software I was brought up on (We had LCs and 5260s and 6360s and 7200s ... oh my!) when I was in primary school, and I could possibly do some initial work on System Software articles ... all this will take time, but I have a lot of free time and not much to do with it for various reasons - so I may as well put it to good use.

Honestly, I'm somewhat perplexed when I hear that things are hard to find - there really isn't that much there to get lost in, IMO.

Click to expand...

That could explain the problem, there are honestly too many redlinks on the wiki for my liking, and information on some pages isn't presented as well as it should be (wikis are, unfortunately, scarcely greater than the sum of their parts) - the content that is there is not always presented consistently. I don't know how to describe it properly... it's just ... the wiki looks wrong to my head. As I said, it's just a very strong feeling that I can do something useful and make it better.

I'm working on structure now in my head to see what exactly I'm aiming for before I start potentially destructive editing, just to be sure.

Right now I know we have three categories off the top of my head that can be used as the parents for everything else:

- Hardware

- Software

- Wetware (as in, the human element - what we can do) (note i'm not actually going to call it "Wetware" - perhaps Tips or something)

Hardware can be subdivided like so:

- Apple II

- Macintosh

- Power Macintosh

- PowerBook

(strictly, my idea of ordering would put iMacs with PowerPCs in Power Macintosh, and iBooks in with PowerBooks)

- Newton

- Clones

- Peripherals

- Expansions

Software might be divided into:

- System Software (System 6, System 7 (, .1, .5, .6), Mac OS 8, Mac OS 9, Mac OS X)

- System Components (Open Transport, CarbonLib come to mind)

- Utilities (most third-party extensions would go in here, drivers probably in System Software)

- Productivity (BBEdit, ClarisWorks, office:mac, etc.)

- Educational (Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiago?, Body Fun, any of teh Dorling Kindersley titles, etc.)

- Games (Hellcats Over The Pacific, Glider+, Deus Ex, Marathon, etc.)

- Programming (MPW, Think C, Think Pascal, etc.)

- Internet (ftp clients, Netscape, IE, Ircle, MacIRC)

, and so on, and so forth.

Wetware (Tips?)

- Board recapping

- Working with Disk Images

- Hardware troubleshooting

- Choosing the right System for your Mac

- things like this

I'm pretty sure you can see the ridiculous extents to which I'm thinking of categorising, and I'm aware that some things will simply have to be in multiple categories - for instance BBEdit is both a productivity and a programming tool, and the Carmen Sandiago games are both Games and Educational (I think they invented the word Edutainment for that, although I've never liked it myself) ...

I feel that imposing a more encompassing structure on the wiki will make it easier to crosslink articles (I've also gained some experience in rapidly fixing dead links en masse, thank the gods) and thus will allow for easier access to information. Of course, this assumes that information (content) is there in the first place, so I'll probably have to do a bit of writing too.

Anyhow this is still in the Just A Brainfart™ stage, but it's to give you an idea of what I'm thinking.