Category talk:Organizations
From NANOG
its probably more in line with wiki culture to allow the people in each category/group define who belongs in that group. many allow alum to keep a presence. also, those relationships aren't easily identified by people outside of those groups, for example, defining those with multiple paid affiliations. I've seen certain people with up to three category affiliations.
--Marty 02:20, 22 August 2006 (GMT)
Yup. Just converting stuff to categories. You just add the tag and your're in as many categories as you like. Enjoy.
jzp 02:27, 22 August 2006 (GMT)
Seeing that some organizations and people were migrated, but some of the others in the category weren't seemed interesting enough to comment on. Of course you aren't the Category slave, but if you are going to make a change to an entire section it seems to make sense to complete the change fully.
--Marty 06:23, 22 August 2006 (GMT)
I did as many as I could before needing to crash out. Nothing prevents you or anyone else here from doing the cutting and pasting. In-between actual, real work I'll try to complete the existing category:Organizations ones. I've also been going through the dead-end and orphans trying to clean them up, and cleaning up dead links, linkeding where things should be, removing duplication, etc. I'd really like to hear feedback on the thought to break up the huge 'mailing list' section.
template
Cooked a template for organizations to use that automatically adds them to the category. Added to merit as an example.
Articles vs. Subcategories
Currently working to migrate all the 'subcategories' into articles. There are several static lists elsewhere on the wiki that should just be category groupings, therefore I'm focusing on the organizations as the "data blob" that need to be categorizing with multiple labels. Given entities that have had multiple sponsorship roles, etc this is a natural way t give them NANOG-related credit as well. jzp 22:40, 4 February 2007 (GMT)
