This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page
The had been an on going conversation about creating an ordered list for British Hills, taller mountains, and a couple of use too the time to implements a Category that did 90% of the house keeping, and created a ordered lsit. Now you are kind of suggesting that this Ordered category be deleted.
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)_and_its_subcategories
I have been building this Category up with the help of a couple of others as these was no comprehensive list of mountains by height (yet). Could someone add feedback to Categories_for_deletion. maybe we can do the same thing automatically with a list, but I dont know how.
¢ NevilleDNZ 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
I disagree strongly. What you say is correct if the list is created AFTER the pages have been added. But (as is the case of British Hills), when a topic is EVOLVING, then typically the list does not even exist. By imbedding the Sorted Category in a InfoBox Template an initial List simply evolves WITHOUT anyone actually having to create it.
MAYBE later with the Sorted Category has settled a list can be created. But even then and auitomatic Category, that requires little house keeping is a nice xref to see of the manual list is actually compete.
BTW: You are right, the order should be reversed. I could fix that, but that requires chanqing the PHP source code. If I did that I have a few other hacks I would like to see added too.
I will fix the NZ later. After all any new topic is defacto "proof of concept" and unlikely to be perfect 1st time.
¢ NevilleDNZ 13:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Thanks for the list. NZ needed one.
I think the issue is that you start with a list of knowns borrowed from somewhere else. Copy it into wikipedia and anoint it. This leaves entising red items to encourage further adding. This seems useful.
I start with a list of unknowns that grows itself automatically into a sorted catelog automatically. Once a Category has been added into an InfoBox Template, then the elevation sorted Category "grows itself" each time someon else uses that InfoBox.
I agree that a single digit index elevation does not look so good. This is a problem with Catagory index, and there are several proposed ways of fixing this, all better solutions require changes in the source code.
BTW: at least 4 of your elevations in the list disagree with the actual wiki page for the same mountain. This raises the issue of "normalising" the database. Ideally - where possible - there would be only one source for a height.
As an example of the power of Category in a Template, by adding 1 line in the mtnstart Infobox I can create a sorted elevation index page of every country on the earth, and indeed known in our universe. And without the need for a robot. I would like to see you do that in 20 minutes with a list. The only reason I have not done this is because this is a community I wanted to see how the idea develped, and what problem there are before imposing my ideas on everyone else. Hence the various discussion in the wiki mountain groups.
Seriously, if was can change the way a category is handled from just [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|3000m]] to [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|Name={{{PAGENAME}}}|elevation=150m|country=NZ|type=volcano|First Ascent=2005/07/31]] then this could easiliy be incorperated int wiki to generate a category that looks list a list/table: eg
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mount Victoria | 150m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/30 |
Mount Wellington | 151m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/31 |
Mount Albert | 152m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/32 |
AND better still would be to imbedd some java script so that this table can be sorted ANYWAY that a user desired by clicking on anyone of:
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|
I am just a yellow belt in Wikipedia. Such a change in Wikipedia would need the help of a black belt such as your self to recommend it to the developers. Do U want to help me out?
BTW: This conversation started in on you talk page, no need to zigzag it from me to you. Append a "." to your sig on my talk_page and I will come here. Cheers.
¢ NevilleDNZ 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Grutness... wha? 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you were to remove the "delete-me stub" from the Mountain Elevation Category pages, and invite you to join in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. There are some good ideas being put forward there on how to manage effectively the growing mountain of Mountian data. ¢ NevilleDNZ 03:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
The term "delete me" stub accurately describes what you added to that and about a dozen other pages. At first I was even thinking that the pages had be vandalised.
ThanX for the moon heights, that list has been missing for some time. Would it be unreasonable to say you managed to introduce another 4 errors? Trying to mirror the same data entered in several different pages is like asking for a $10 parking fine for violating Murphies Law, now "someone" needs to maintain cross references between about 20 pages for the moon.
Do you have any plans of doing the British Hills by Height also? The Himalayas and Andes need one also. It would seems to me that an Automatically sorted Category would save you a lot of time. :-)
Please remove the "delete me" stubs from those pages. It was unreasonable to add them in the first place when the pages were actively being edited, and you did even contact the contributors involved. To say it is against policy is silly as you were the one that added the "delete me subs" in the first place. Don't we need to take this to dispute resolution just now. ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
re: "I have gone out of my way to help by creating three of the lists for you", LOL, Now I know you are not serious. You duplicated something done automatically by wiki and wasn't necesasary, you propogate and then manually multiply other contributors errors, and then tell me I should be grateful. Its Friday... Cheers ¢ NevilleDNZ 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
You might consider that the problem is buried in the way properties may be cast to categories. For me both of your solutions look like a workaround to a common problem. Don't you think it would make sense to have properties for categories combined with a decent template system to perform database lookups and generate tables "on the fly". These tables could also serve as navigation bars and could keep the number of adatabase lookups low. Concerning the discussion if it makes more sense to generate a lemma for each entry on a list, or have "dead" lists spread over documents I would personally favor dynamic lists (with category lokup, sorting and range limitation), property editing with an explicit editor and dynamic navigation bars (all done by user overridable templates). This would resolve not only your dispute, but also many others and might help wikipedia become lean and easy to edit again. -- BoP 09:57:28, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
I partly agree - I am stronger in favor of getting rid of the "nonsense" categories, however this is a wikipedia-political question. there has been much effort put into the "abuse" of categories and there is some positive energy behind this movement as is with yours. That's why I suggest to go one step further to get rid of the problems by finding a solution where neither is pushed aside. Additionally these discussions can be found in several places with this "workaround" as the closest to the properties problem. This seems to be the appropriate time to push this issue forward. -- BoP 20:24:06, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Hello. Do you think we should add Category:Oceanic trenches by depth (km) to WP:CFD? It is the same case like "Mountains by Elevation (km)". All categories were created by User:NevilleDNZ. - Darwinek 09:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Please, don't feel disobliged, if you feel that this award is appropriate and deserved then you can put this on your user page. ¢ NevilleDNZ 14:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page
The had been an on going conversation about creating an ordered list for British Hills, taller mountains, and a couple of use too the time to implements a Category that did 90% of the house keeping, and created a ordered lsit. Now you are kind of suggesting that this Ordered category be deleted.
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)_and_its_subcategories
I have been building this Category up with the help of a couple of others as these was no comprehensive list of mountains by height (yet). Could someone add feedback to Categories_for_deletion. maybe we can do the same thing automatically with a list, but I dont know how.
¢ NevilleDNZ 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
I disagree strongly. What you say is correct if the list is created AFTER the pages have been added. But (as is the case of British Hills), when a topic is EVOLVING, then typically the list does not even exist. By imbedding the Sorted Category in a InfoBox Template an initial List simply evolves WITHOUT anyone actually having to create it.
MAYBE later with the Sorted Category has settled a list can be created. But even then and auitomatic Category, that requires little house keeping is a nice xref to see of the manual list is actually compete.
BTW: You are right, the order should be reversed. I could fix that, but that requires chanqing the PHP source code. If I did that I have a few other hacks I would like to see added too.
I will fix the NZ later. After all any new topic is defacto "proof of concept" and unlikely to be perfect 1st time.
¢ NevilleDNZ 13:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Thanks for the list. NZ needed one.
I think the issue is that you start with a list of knowns borrowed from somewhere else. Copy it into wikipedia and anoint it. This leaves entising red items to encourage further adding. This seems useful.
I start with a list of unknowns that grows itself automatically into a sorted catelog automatically. Once a Category has been added into an InfoBox Template, then the elevation sorted Category "grows itself" each time someon else uses that InfoBox.
I agree that a single digit index elevation does not look so good. This is a problem with Catagory index, and there are several proposed ways of fixing this, all better solutions require changes in the source code.
BTW: at least 4 of your elevations in the list disagree with the actual wiki page for the same mountain. This raises the issue of "normalising" the database. Ideally - where possible - there would be only one source for a height.
As an example of the power of Category in a Template, by adding 1 line in the mtnstart Infobox I can create a sorted elevation index page of every country on the earth, and indeed known in our universe. And without the need for a robot. I would like to see you do that in 20 minutes with a list. The only reason I have not done this is because this is a community I wanted to see how the idea develped, and what problem there are before imposing my ideas on everyone else. Hence the various discussion in the wiki mountain groups.
Seriously, if was can change the way a category is handled from just [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|3000m]] to [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|Name={{{PAGENAME}}}|elevation=150m|country=NZ|type=volcano|First Ascent=2005/07/31]] then this could easiliy be incorperated int wiki to generate a category that looks list a list/table: eg
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mount Victoria | 150m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/30 |
Mount Wellington | 151m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/31 |
Mount Albert | 152m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/32 |
AND better still would be to imbedd some java script so that this table can be sorted ANYWAY that a user desired by clicking on anyone of:
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|
I am just a yellow belt in Wikipedia. Such a change in Wikipedia would need the help of a black belt such as your self to recommend it to the developers. Do U want to help me out?
BTW: This conversation started in on you talk page, no need to zigzag it from me to you. Append a "." to your sig on my talk_page and I will come here. Cheers.
¢ NevilleDNZ 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Grutness... wha? 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you were to remove the "delete-me stub" from the Mountain Elevation Category pages, and invite you to join in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. There are some good ideas being put forward there on how to manage effectively the growing mountain of Mountian data. ¢ NevilleDNZ 03:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
The term "delete me" stub accurately describes what you added to that and about a dozen other pages. At first I was even thinking that the pages had be vandalised.
ThanX for the moon heights, that list has been missing for some time. Would it be unreasonable to say you managed to introduce another 4 errors? Trying to mirror the same data entered in several different pages is like asking for a $10 parking fine for violating Murphies Law, now "someone" needs to maintain cross references between about 20 pages for the moon.
Do you have any plans of doing the British Hills by Height also? The Himalayas and Andes need one also. It would seems to me that an Automatically sorted Category would save you a lot of time. :-)
Please remove the "delete me" stubs from those pages. It was unreasonable to add them in the first place when the pages were actively being edited, and you did even contact the contributors involved. To say it is against policy is silly as you were the one that added the "delete me subs" in the first place. Don't we need to take this to dispute resolution just now. ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
re: "I have gone out of my way to help by creating three of the lists for you", LOL, Now I know you are not serious. You duplicated something done automatically by wiki and wasn't necesasary, you propogate and then manually multiply other contributors errors, and then tell me I should be grateful. Its Friday... Cheers ¢ NevilleDNZ 14:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
You might consider that the problem is buried in the way properties may be cast to categories. For me both of your solutions look like a workaround to a common problem. Don't you think it would make sense to have properties for categories combined with a decent template system to perform database lookups and generate tables "on the fly". These tables could also serve as navigation bars and could keep the number of adatabase lookups low. Concerning the discussion if it makes more sense to generate a lemma for each entry on a list, or have "dead" lists spread over documents I would personally favor dynamic lists (with category lokup, sorting and range limitation), property editing with an explicit editor and dynamic navigation bars (all done by user overridable templates). This would resolve not only your dispute, but also many others and might help wikipedia become lean and easy to edit again. -- BoP 09:57:28, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
I partly agree - I am stronger in favor of getting rid of the "nonsense" categories, however this is a wikipedia-political question. there has been much effort put into the "abuse" of categories and there is some positive energy behind this movement as is with yours. That's why I suggest to go one step further to get rid of the problems by finding a solution where neither is pushed aside. Additionally these discussions can be found in several places with this "workaround" as the closest to the properties problem. This seems to be the appropriate time to push this issue forward. -- BoP 20:24:06, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Hello. Do you think we should add Category:Oceanic trenches by depth (km) to WP:CFD? It is the same case like "Mountains by Elevation (km)". All categories were created by User:NevilleDNZ. - Darwinek 09:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Please, don't feel disobliged, if you feel that this award is appropriate and deserved then you can put this on your user page. ¢ NevilleDNZ 14:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢