Board Thread:Watercooler/@comment-24473195-20160909094117/@comment-24473195-20160910115325

"However, most of them do have some logic to them, but take my word on this, the organization used to be worse!" Yikes, it was worse?

Anyway, thanks for the background on the current naming scheme. It seems clear that we won't get a "one size fits all". So rather than trying to shoehorn these scripts into the "One True Category", it may be better to add complicated tools into a multi-purpose category, and let the script's description and script page provide more detailed information.

This means that for scripts such as WHAM it would be categorized in its script page as:


 * Moderation (parent category)
 * Anti vandalism (child category)
 * Page and file management (probably rename this)

Using Deadcoder's description, it is clear that some of this grouping is sub-optimal:


 * Scope
 * User (personal) tools vs Site enhancements - These are just  defining where it is appropriate to use them.
 * Permissions (admin tools) - different from scope, basically who can use a tool if it is installed. This could really also just move to the infobox or under curation / moderation tools.

In fact, most user management scripts are either admin or bureaucrat tools.

The alternative is duplicating the script description in multiple sections or using very broad categories that cover everything.