User talk:Sarvagnya/categories

Hi all,

I recently adopted the Category:Kannada. imho, all the categories, atleast the Karnataka/Kannada categories are a mess with lot of redundancy. I am working on restructuring the categories. I have made a rough sketch(see article page) of how I feel it should be. Please take a look at it and comment/suggest/correct/englighten/tear apart on this page. Is there any standard that wiki india projects are following for categorisation. I couldnt find any. Atleast the articles dont seem to be following any. Most of them, I feel are ad hoc. And again, what you will see here(on the article page) is a very rough sketch, neither complete nor final. Thanks.

Sarvagnya 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)''''[reply]

Category missing

Hi. Just saw your message. I have just had a quick glance. A category on Education in K is missing. Schools/Colleges could go into that. Will take a closer look later. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A section on "Economy" is missing. Towns, Cities, and Villages should have sections. Check out the standard prescribed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. In religion, I think, there would be tribal and other indigenous religions that resemble Hinduism but might be closer to nature worship. Something similar to Ayyanar for example. There are small minorities of other (indigenous?) peoples in Karnataka too. Take Sanketi people for example; there should be a category for them, IMO. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this categorization looks good. Question on "Sports..."...do we need such a category? I would imagine that Karnataka by and large is involved in many of the same sports that the rest of the country is involved in (cricket, field hockey, etc.). Do we need that category. I also think that once we're done implementing this, we should add a link to the Karnataka Portal showing the various Karnataka-based categories and sub-categories. AreJay 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further elaborate on my last point, I am envisioning a metadata-type page, and depending on how successful this turns out to be for Karnataka, maybe this is something that we should look at for Category:India as well. AreJay 13:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks good but maybe you could squeeze many of the categories into fewer intial subheadings such as People, Geography, Culture, Laguage... and then for example have film, literature etc under culture? I don't know, just a thought I thought I would throw out there. Nothing solid I'm afraid. --Antorjal 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]