This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Previous discussions are archived here:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 2
Some thoughts...
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.
Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.
For beautiful example of this, check out Template:United States and Category:U.S. states. And notice how the U.S. states category contains at least eleven lists. The template provides quick and meaningful navigation, the lists provide additional information and alternate sorting, and the category provides overall organization and links to related groups of topics.
That is synergy.
-
Pioneer-12 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, You appear to have done something that destroyed the ability to edit this talk page by section. Somehow, now the correct sections nolonger appear in the edit screen. Can you fix this problem?
Next, this is not what I asked for. I do not want a lecture. I would like for you to actually write the proposed text, rather than lecture me about it. In other words, I would like for you to actually contribute to the writing of this proposed text. Other editors should also participate.
So, why don't we start all over again at the very bottom of this talk page, and actually write text that could actually be inserted in the project page in lieu of the present list of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of abilities (as your previously wrote on this topic). I am having trouble visualizing how this might actually look.
And, finally, synergy is only one small part of this proposal rather than the entire point. The major part is the listing of categories, lists, and ASB from a abilities point of view. I would assume that would then lead to a section of instructions regarding merging lists into categories, etc., etc., -- John Gohde 14:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The contents of these sections have been bouncing around like a caffeine addict doing the Hokey Pokey. So many things have been moved in and out of these sections I'm not sure what should be in there any more. I think it would be helpful if people made a list, on a seperate page, of all the things they think should be listed in these sections, instead of reverting minor changes back and forth. I would especially love to compare Snowspinner's list to John Gohde's list. - Pioneer-12 03:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it queer than when categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, that our beloved Main page doesn't have a single category on it? Isn't it odd, that Main page uses a list, and a template no less, to organize the entire web of information on Wikipedia? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that plain old lists are easier to use than categories?
Clicking on Article overviews produces one of those dreaded ASBs which just happens to do an even better job of helping visitors to Wikipedia find what they are looking for. Likewise, clicking on BROWSE produces a very useful ASB. Compare these two ASBs to Category:Fundamental and try to tell me that the category does a better job of presenting its respective information!
Clicking on SCIENCE unfortunately produces a category which is nothing but a total mess of unorganized information. A bulleted list, intelligently showing relationships, or an ASB would do a much better job.
Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! -- John Gohde 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be m:Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think that this guideline should be as big as it is required to be and no smaller. Furthermore, we have just begun to make this guideline useful. I still want a separate section discussing synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. The real work has just begun. Otherwise, this whole guideline should be deleted as so far it is clearly redundant and totally unnecessary. -- John Gohde 20:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here are my issues with the current guideline page:
I wouldn't say I hate categories (yet) - a large percentage of my more than 10,000 edits on wikipedia are category-related. On the other hand, I definitely think categories are currently overused and it pains me that there isn't a guideline to point to to justify WP:CFD votes for deletion in cases like category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film). I'd like this guideline to be the place. Categories ARE useful, but so are lists and so are navigational templates (and not just for series!). -- Rick Block 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is a guideline on how and when to use each method. In order to know how and when to use each method, I need to know what each method can and cannot do. That is, I need to know the abilities of each method. The purpose and utility of the "advantages" sections is to let readers clearly know the abilities of each method.
However, some people have seen these sections as a competition and as a podium to show that "categories are good" or "categories are bad". (How silly!)
Perhaps it would be better if the advantages sections were renamed "Abilities". This would:
- Pioneer-12 22:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Focusing on abilities will also make these sections shorter and more cogent, as non-ability related items will be removed. It also, I think, makes the "disadvantages" (or "lack of ability") sections unnecessary. They could be replaced with notes on "when not to use".
Being shorter and to the point should make a number of people, including Dave Gerard, Snowspinner, and myself, happy. - Pioneer-12 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here you go. This fits in with the whole abilities point of view. I think these sections should replace the current "disadvantages" sections. Interestingly, by thinking in terms of abilities and "when to use, when not to use, and what to use instead", you see how these tools complement instead of compete with each other. It's synergy, baby! - Pioneer-12 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When it is a grouping that it not a "classification" or a grouping that requires annotations. In these cases, use a list instead.
When it is a grouping mainly for navigational convenience. In these cases, use a navigational template instead.
When it simply duplicates a category and adds no meaningful annotations. In there cases, use a category instead.
When articles that are in the same subject but not meaningfully related to each other. For example, Eli Whitney, Adolphe Sax, and Levi Strauss are all inventors, but they have have no significant connection to one another. Navigational templates should only be used when one would want to directly navigate from one topic to other. For general classification, use categories.
For long lists of items. If a navigational template is too large, it clutters up an article and distracts from the article-specific content. In these cases, the template should be converted into a list or category.
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.
Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.
Synergy is the interconnections between categories, lists, and series boxes and the benefits that Wikipedia expects to realize from their intelligent use. Here we will describe a complementary approach where none of these tools compete with each other. This section is a guide on how and when to use each tool.
What is getting to be very tiresome is working with a contrary editor, who absolutely refuses to help reach a consensus with at least 2 other editors on anything, even on their own ideas. You are a breed of editor full of ideas, or hot air depending on your perspective, who for what ever reason refuses to articulate their own ideas into workable text in the above box of whatever color. Either you are either incredibly obnoxious or extremely dense.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I consider the abilities idea offically dead until you develop something that I can actually see. Feel free, to do whatever. I am back to developing the advantages/disadvantages approach.
Just incase you, truly don't know. The editing capabilities of this talk page remain destroyed. -- John Gohde 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Two things:
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be m:Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
There's an old issue that as far as I know has never been resolved regarding the wording about navigational templates that are not article series boxes (the article says these should be replaced with categories). I've started a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Many_navigational_templates_in_violation_of_WP:CSL,_what_to_do?. If you're interested, please commment there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a case that calls for modification of the rule on articles not being in both a parent category and a sub-category (besides the existing exception of when the article defines the sub-category.) I'll lay out a hypothetical case that illustrates why this second exception makes sense; please bear with me as I lay out the (imaginary) facts:
This is where the meat of the problem shows. Humdingler is relevant to the parent category in two ways: as a former adherent, and as a critic. However, because one of those two ways has its own category, it is (incorrectly) being presented as if it was the only way he was relevant to the parent category. Beanwexler is a prominent critic, which earns him his place in the parent category, but Humdingler, an equally prominent critic, is deprived of his place in the parent category because he once was an adherent.
For this reason, I suggest we add language which explains a second exception: when the article has a relevance to the parent category that does not fall under any of the existing sub-categories -- even if it has other relevance which does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. For instance, in our category of French revolution figures, I believe that many of the leaders of the revolution are all divided up into subcategories by their means of death. It is absurd that this subcategorization should remove them from the main category. john k 01:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The project page guidelines specify that an article should not be in both a parent category and a sub-category, unless the article defines the sub-category. Does this apply to categories themselves as well as articles? That is, if Category A is in Category B but does not define it, and Category B is in Category C, does the rule specify that Category A shouldn't be also a direct sub-category of Category C? That's what is implied by making the same rule on articles apply to categories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I have marked this as {{ proposed}} since there was no policy tag and parts of it seem to lack consensus. My comment on this can be found at the village pump. Dragons flight 01:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a semantic system. Here the proposal:
This would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping the code and structuretransparent and easy to maintain. See also bugzilla entry
-- BoP 08:17:08, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Previous discussions are archived here:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 2
Some thoughts...
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.
Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.
For beautiful example of this, check out Template:United States and Category:U.S. states. And notice how the U.S. states category contains at least eleven lists. The template provides quick and meaningful navigation, the lists provide additional information and alternate sorting, and the category provides overall organization and links to related groups of topics.
That is synergy.
-
Pioneer-12 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, You appear to have done something that destroyed the ability to edit this talk page by section. Somehow, now the correct sections nolonger appear in the edit screen. Can you fix this problem?
Next, this is not what I asked for. I do not want a lecture. I would like for you to actually write the proposed text, rather than lecture me about it. In other words, I would like for you to actually contribute to the writing of this proposed text. Other editors should also participate.
So, why don't we start all over again at the very bottom of this talk page, and actually write text that could actually be inserted in the project page in lieu of the present list of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of abilities (as your previously wrote on this topic). I am having trouble visualizing how this might actually look.
And, finally, synergy is only one small part of this proposal rather than the entire point. The major part is the listing of categories, lists, and ASB from a abilities point of view. I would assume that would then lead to a section of instructions regarding merging lists into categories, etc., etc., -- John Gohde 14:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The contents of these sections have been bouncing around like a caffeine addict doing the Hokey Pokey. So many things have been moved in and out of these sections I'm not sure what should be in there any more. I think it would be helpful if people made a list, on a seperate page, of all the things they think should be listed in these sections, instead of reverting minor changes back and forth. I would especially love to compare Snowspinner's list to John Gohde's list. - Pioneer-12 03:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it queer than when categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, that our beloved Main page doesn't have a single category on it? Isn't it odd, that Main page uses a list, and a template no less, to organize the entire web of information on Wikipedia? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that plain old lists are easier to use than categories?
Clicking on Article overviews produces one of those dreaded ASBs which just happens to do an even better job of helping visitors to Wikipedia find what they are looking for. Likewise, clicking on BROWSE produces a very useful ASB. Compare these two ASBs to Category:Fundamental and try to tell me that the category does a better job of presenting its respective information!
Clicking on SCIENCE unfortunately produces a category which is nothing but a total mess of unorganized information. A bulleted list, intelligently showing relationships, or an ASB would do a much better job.
Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! -- John Gohde 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be m:Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think that this guideline should be as big as it is required to be and no smaller. Furthermore, we have just begun to make this guideline useful. I still want a separate section discussing synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. The real work has just begun. Otherwise, this whole guideline should be deleted as so far it is clearly redundant and totally unnecessary. -- John Gohde 20:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here are my issues with the current guideline page:
I wouldn't say I hate categories (yet) - a large percentage of my more than 10,000 edits on wikipedia are category-related. On the other hand, I definitely think categories are currently overused and it pains me that there isn't a guideline to point to to justify WP:CFD votes for deletion in cases like category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film). I'd like this guideline to be the place. Categories ARE useful, but so are lists and so are navigational templates (and not just for series!). -- Rick Block 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is a guideline on how and when to use each method. In order to know how and when to use each method, I need to know what each method can and cannot do. That is, I need to know the abilities of each method. The purpose and utility of the "advantages" sections is to let readers clearly know the abilities of each method.
However, some people have seen these sections as a competition and as a podium to show that "categories are good" or "categories are bad". (How silly!)
Perhaps it would be better if the advantages sections were renamed "Abilities". This would:
- Pioneer-12 22:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Focusing on abilities will also make these sections shorter and more cogent, as non-ability related items will be removed. It also, I think, makes the "disadvantages" (or "lack of ability") sections unnecessary. They could be replaced with notes on "when not to use".
Being shorter and to the point should make a number of people, including Dave Gerard, Snowspinner, and myself, happy. - Pioneer-12 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here you go. This fits in with the whole abilities point of view. I think these sections should replace the current "disadvantages" sections. Interestingly, by thinking in terms of abilities and "when to use, when not to use, and what to use instead", you see how these tools complement instead of compete with each other. It's synergy, baby! - Pioneer-12 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When it is a grouping that it not a "classification" or a grouping that requires annotations. In these cases, use a list instead.
When it is a grouping mainly for navigational convenience. In these cases, use a navigational template instead.
When it simply duplicates a category and adds no meaningful annotations. In there cases, use a category instead.
When articles that are in the same subject but not meaningfully related to each other. For example, Eli Whitney, Adolphe Sax, and Levi Strauss are all inventors, but they have have no significant connection to one another. Navigational templates should only be used when one would want to directly navigate from one topic to other. For general classification, use categories.
For long lists of items. If a navigational template is too large, it clutters up an article and distracts from the article-specific content. In these cases, the template should be converted into a list or category.
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.
Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.
Synergy is the interconnections between categories, lists, and series boxes and the benefits that Wikipedia expects to realize from their intelligent use. Here we will describe a complementary approach where none of these tools compete with each other. This section is a guide on how and when to use each tool.
What is getting to be very tiresome is working with a contrary editor, who absolutely refuses to help reach a consensus with at least 2 other editors on anything, even on their own ideas. You are a breed of editor full of ideas, or hot air depending on your perspective, who for what ever reason refuses to articulate their own ideas into workable text in the above box of whatever color. Either you are either incredibly obnoxious or extremely dense.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I consider the abilities idea offically dead until you develop something that I can actually see. Feel free, to do whatever. I am back to developing the advantages/disadvantages approach.
Just incase you, truly don't know. The editing capabilities of this talk page remain destroyed. -- John Gohde 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Two things:
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be m:Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
There's an old issue that as far as I know has never been resolved regarding the wording about navigational templates that are not article series boxes (the article says these should be replaced with categories). I've started a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Many_navigational_templates_in_violation_of_WP:CSL,_what_to_do?. If you're interested, please commment there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a case that calls for modification of the rule on articles not being in both a parent category and a sub-category (besides the existing exception of when the article defines the sub-category.) I'll lay out a hypothetical case that illustrates why this second exception makes sense; please bear with me as I lay out the (imaginary) facts:
This is where the meat of the problem shows. Humdingler is relevant to the parent category in two ways: as a former adherent, and as a critic. However, because one of those two ways has its own category, it is (incorrectly) being presented as if it was the only way he was relevant to the parent category. Beanwexler is a prominent critic, which earns him his place in the parent category, but Humdingler, an equally prominent critic, is deprived of his place in the parent category because he once was an adherent.
For this reason, I suggest we add language which explains a second exception: when the article has a relevance to the parent category that does not fall under any of the existing sub-categories -- even if it has other relevance which does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. For instance, in our category of French revolution figures, I believe that many of the leaders of the revolution are all divided up into subcategories by their means of death. It is absurd that this subcategorization should remove them from the main category. john k 01:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The project page guidelines specify that an article should not be in both a parent category and a sub-category, unless the article defines the sub-category. Does this apply to categories themselves as well as articles? That is, if Category A is in Category B but does not define it, and Category B is in Category C, does the rule specify that Category A shouldn't be also a direct sub-category of Category C? That's what is implied by making the same rule on articles apply to categories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I have marked this as {{ proposed}} since there was no policy tag and parts of it seem to lack consensus. My comment on this can be found at the village pump. Dragons flight 01:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a semantic system. Here the proposal:
This would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping the code and structuretransparent and easy to maintain. See also bugzilla entry
-- BoP 08:17:08, 2005-09-02 (UTC)