Category talk:Skills

Learning

I'm not sure that this makes sense as a subcat of Category:Learning. The content does not relate to learning, but rather things (skills) which can be learned. By that logic, the entire Wikipedia could be a subcat of Learning. -- Visviva 02:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cfd 23 Aug 2005

No consensus, no change, see discussion for details. It is recommended to cleanup the category to define what constitutes a skill. ∞Who?¿? 00:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) sandeep

Categorisation of techniques

I was looking over some technique categories, and noticed that there are alot of them with almost no internavigability between them. In my considered opinion, some categorisation is needed.

My first thought was a Category:Techniques but there is already Category:Skills, and technique itself is a disambiguation page that points to skill (and other listings).

My 2nd thought is that if one were to add all of the technique categories into Category:Skills it would swell the category greatly. While not everything needs a new category because of WP:subcategorisation (i.e. Category:Musical techniques is under Category:Artistic techniques which is already part of this category) enough categories would join this umbrella that is a consideration.

So I propose that we do one of the following:

1. The existing technique categories, and any individual technique lists not part of one of those categories, be added into Category:Skills. With due consideration not to add both a category and it's subcategories.
2. We create Category:Techniques, and add the categories and pages (as 1).
3. We create Category:Techniques as a subcategory of Category:Skills, and add the categories and pages (as 1).
4. We leave the system as is.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1 is my prefered choice, but any of the first three would solve the problem. Andrewaskew (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently Category:Skills contains a strange assortment of articles and categories - for example it has Shipfitter, but not thousands of other occupations that require some skill and its subcategories include articles like Potash which aren't about skills at all. If driving is considered a skill then what about reading, swimming, walking - in fact virtually every human (and animal) activity ? This category needs a clear definition of its scope, or maybe even taking to WP:CFD. Articles that are about the acquisition of skills should be in Category:Learning. A "Techniques" category might be useful (e.g. Category:Navigation has a lot of articles that could go in a "Navigation techniques" category), but it should have a clear definition (especially as there isn't an article of that name). There's also a Category:Procedural knowledge. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Plan

I have elected to WP:BEBOLD here and begin a campaign to tidy up these categories. My current plan is as follows:

• I will take DexDor's comments on board and create Category:Techniques as per 3 above.
• I will include Category:Procedural knowledge as a sub-cateory of Category:Skills.
• I will reorder the daughter categories so that the categorisation system is easy for future editors. (I welcome suggestions as to the system we use.)
• I will develop the page techniques, if there is sufficient material to make a page that is not simply a Wikipedia:Dictionary definition.
• Down the line there may become a need to include further categories, such as Category:Procedures, or Category:Occupations.

I welcome contributions or suggestions from interested editors. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)