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. |
Good stuff, but the series box paragraph comes out of nowhere. Without it, the article is factual and informative. With it, it's just confusing! Howsabout something more general? "When to use categories, lists, and series boxes". Include pros and cons of each and guidelines for use. Also, document using templates for series boxes! I'm loving categories, so I'm all for more policy on it.--Sfoskett 21:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perfect. As it stands right now, it's totally in tune with what I've been advocating regarding the use of categories. Postdlf 21:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
>> - for instance, placing Ohio in both Category:Political divisions of the United States and Category:Ohio. <<
Um...Political divisions of the United States was too crowded, so I moved the states to Category:U.S. states. I couldn't think of a good replacement example off the top of my head...--Beland 07:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In "Category:U.S. states", you will find the 50 state categories. I have not added individual state articles for several reasons.
The first reason: It would make it harder to find related information about the state. In a list of 100 things where each thing is listed twice, it's easy to get confused about which one you are clicking on. Also, people not familiar with the category system (I assume that would be most readers) will not really know what to expect out of one link vs. the other. We don't know in advance what information the reader is looking for - for example do they want information *related to* Ohio (of which there are currently 16 subcategories and 8 other top-level articles), or the *main article* about Ohio? We don't want people looking for the former to conclude it doesn't exist because they clicked on the second instance of the word Ohio, which happened to bring them to the main article. But bringing people looking for the latter to the category is OK, because they should be able to find the main article there quite easily.
The second reason: Adding the 50 state articles would make it a lot harder to find the growing list of articles about the US states in general (not associated with a particular state). They would clutter up the article list, obscure the boundary between categories and articles, and make the whole page rather overwhelming in size.
The third reason: For ease of maintenance, it's better to have one place where parent categories are defined (the category), rather than two (the article and the category). Otherwise, the two lists will become out of sync with each other. -- Beland 02:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I notice that the Ohio example has been put back in. If it were a good example, it should say "US states", not "Political divisions of the United States". But currently this example is not true; wouldn't it be better to find a non-disputed one? -- Beland 02:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Generally, linking from lists should be one-way. That is to say, lists should link to articles, but articles should generally not link to lists simply because they are included on the list. There may, of course, be other reasons to link to a list from an article, and this should not be construed as a policy against linking to lists. However, the simple fact that an article is on a list does not itself justify a link to the list.
Is there any precedent or evidence of consensus for this? It seems to be done on a regular basis and I don't think even the watered down "generally not" terminology is appropriate. anthony (see warning) 11:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea of the rule. Maybe it should be noted that there is almost always at least an indirect link back to the list, e.g. from Ian Thorpe through swimmer to list of swimmers. The link (currently) at the bottom of the page "Ian Thorpe" to list of swimmers is probably not needed. For more specific lists, it's debatable if this to be done in one way (left) or the other (right). -- User:Docu
Wilfried Derksen and Joy talked about this topic in the context of having categorization together with linking to lists. See here and here.
We need a rule on whether or not categories can be limited to articles on topics meeting a certain criteria, or whether they need only be related to the topic. For instance, can a category called "Pop Singers" include an article on a magazine about pop singers, or should (can) the category be limited to articles about actual pop singers. I've seen both done, but I'm not sure if this is legitimate or not. anthony (see warning) 01:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What's with a category having to answer yes to "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?" A few paragraphs??? Shouldn't the category simply link to the relevant article explaining it's subject? If there is no such article, the category should be explainable in a single sentence (perhaps with another one or two for clarification of what exactly could go in it) - otherwise, to me it sounds far too complex to be a category. ··gracefool |☺ 22:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Related to comments posed on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.
I am of the opinion that the "Article series boxes" section of this page goes against Wikipedia consensus, as exemplified by the majority of the entries under Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Navigational templates are not generally considered linear, nor do should they be. Examples of currently-in-use nonlinear navigational templates include (to select a random twenty-five):
In other words, the policy as stated appears to directly contradict current and past Wikipedia practice. The sort of linear, chronological-style "series boxes" which the latest writing of the policy advocates could easily be restricted to the format seen in Margaret Thatcher or Saionji Kinmochi -- or might themselves be better suited to a 'list' style, since I can scarcely imagine that one would generally want to read through the entire list of British Prime Ministers at once! However, many related collections of articles which may not have strict orders (such as the quantum computing, calculus, same-sex marriage, or eye boxes above) should nonetheless be directly crosslinked, and the simplest and most efficient way of doing this is by templatizing the set of links thereto. Wikipedia is not paper, and we should not be pretending that it is by artificially limiting a set of articles to a linear reading: we gain nothing at all by doing so. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:28, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
Most, if not all of the boxes listed there predate the implementation of categories, and so were created when there was no alternative to ugly, bulky boxes. Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. Snowspinner 22:20, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Now there is an alternative, and the boxes should be converted to categories and removed. That is your opinion, but there does not seem to be any consensus for this opinion. I, for one, think there are times when a box is more appropriate than a category, or makes a useful addition to a category. Categories are extremely limited at this stage and can't do the things that boxes can do. Take something like Template:Interstates:
I don't think this "policy" has consensus support for it. I think the thinktank tag was removed inappropriately (and frankly it was done for suspect reasons, as Snowspinner was arguing with someone over whether or not this was a policy while removing the tag saying it wasn't). anthony (see warning) 14:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[Back to left margin] I'm not sure what "public discussion" you refer to. It seems there are unanswered objections above, or do those not count? I'm no fan of "massive eyesore templates", but the fact of the matter is that many of the templates on Wikipedia:Navigational templates are popular and in wide use, but would be invalid under the policy as currently phrased. older≠wiser 21:00, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
This thread seems to have died. Is there a consensus conclusion? I favor changing the wording to permit navigational boxes for at least geographical entities (which seem to be extremely common). IMO, categories don't quite cut it for this since categories are for a single type of article. The geography navigational templates often include, for example, cities AND counties facilitating navigation from a city (in category:cities in x) to a county (in category:counties in x). Using categories this requires traversing from an article, to a category, generally "up" to a supercategory (e.g. from category:cities in x to category:x), "down" to a different subcategory, and (whew) finally to the article of interest. I think this sort of geographical navigational box is essentially an extended "see also" section, with different (more attractive and denser) formatting. -- Rick Block 02:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Categories don't come close to replacing a well-annotated list to related articles.
Anybody casually familiar with searching on Wikipedia should know this. I only know what categories are, because I am an editor. New visitors to Wikipedia are most likely to be using the default user skin [1]. With the default skin, categories are listed at the very bottom of the web page. Hence, nobody not currently an editor would ever even be likely to see any of the various categories, let alone know what they are for. Once found by a new visitor to Wikipedia, categories are still extremely confusing and time consuming to use.
I am objecting to this specific category guideline.
Take Category:Alternative medicine, for example. Every article on this topic can be put into some type of sub-category that would logically fall under this category. Yet, I see a whole bunch of articles listed in this major category when few if any articles should be listed per this category guideline.
Body work (alternative medicine) is a case in point. Note how alternative medicine is actually included in the title of this article. Yet, you wont find Body work (alternative medicine) in Category:Alternative medicine thanks to the editing efforts of editors following this Wikipedian category guideline.
Homeopathy is another case in point which has its own Category:Homeopathy. There are a number of articles in this category. But, not one of them refers to category:Alternative medicine. The only place category:Alternative medicine is found is within its sub-category Category:Homeopathy. My question is this. Why would a new visitor to Wikipedia reading homeopathy interested in finding other articles on alternative medicine ever click on Category:Homeopathy when they are already in the article on homeopathy? This assumes of course that they could find the link on the very bottom of the page that they are supposed to click on.
As an editor, I am familar with categories. There is a certain amount of logic to them. However, I am concerned only with the likely behavior of a new vistor to Wikipedia who is using the default user skin[4]. Suppose that visitor is trying to find articles on alternative medicine. That new visitor is not likely to find Category:Alternative medicine. And if they manage to find it, they wont find Body work (alternative medicine) on the list, thanks to this category guideline.
Visitors visit Wikipedia in order to obtain knowledge, but using the categories feature assumes that these visitors already have the knowledge that they are searching for.
Now image trying to do something really imagative with categories like creating a category in order to replace a well-annotated list to related articles. It would never work because of this guideline. Categories will therefore NEVER replace the value of a well-annotated list to related articles. -- John Gohde 07:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In addition, categories do not work, unlike lists to related articles, during server problems. Categories are a real time feature that obviously puts a tremendous burden on Wikipedia's limited computer resources. -- John Gohde 05:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the bigger picture, categories are generally totally botched on all mirror copies of Wikipedia. And the reason is totally obvious. Categories are not a file. The implication is clear. Categories do not exist on mirror copies of Wikipedia, whereas commonsense systems that are based on Lists are totally functional. -- John Gohde 01:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, any and all editors are supposed to assign CAM articles at their own whim to a sub-category, without any advanced planning, guidance, or control from a Wikiproject? The science people like to say that all of alternative medicine is quackery, yet they seem to be failing to put articles in category:Quackery rather than in category:alternative medicine.
Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Classification Systems has documented that there are at least seven different ways to classify CAM articles.
The WikiProject's infoboxes currently classifies branches of medicine four different ways. That is NOT 4 categories. That is four parallel ways of classifying each of which requires more than one category.
To implement categorization by Classification by Standard of Knowledge and Quality of the Evidence alone requires 5 different categories: Real Science, Protoscience, Pseudoscience, Enlightenment, and the Supernatural. In addition to these 5 categories, two other categories have already been implemented: category:Quackery and category:Fraud.
Kindly, explain the difference between the category:Pseudoscience, category:Quackery and category:Fraud categories? What if someone decides to implement category:Health fraud?
The implications of this is that most branches of alternative medicine articles can be classified 5 different ways and could have up to 5 sub alternative medicine categories alone.
Currently, there are already 11 subcategories in category:alternative medicine. Should we add one on CAM stubs? Medicine already has Category:Medicine stubs. As time goes by, without guidance and more guidelines to follow the number of these subcategories in category:alternative medicine will get a lot bigger.
Now, exactly how does the use of categories enable visitors to find articles on alternative medicine? How do all these sub-categories help visitors find articles?
Time spent categorizing articles is a bottomless pit. Putting infoboxes in articles takes time, but at least the number of articles is finite. The way it is now, you could categorize articles for ever. And, somebody is sure to come along at a later point in time to undo what you have spent time doing.
This does not motivate me to spend any more of my limited time categorizing. -- John Gohde 11:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the commenting out of speculation on database operation, I would like the justification for doing so posted here within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, I am likely to re-add them since they are anything but speculation to me. -- John Gohde 03:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There happens to be more than one project page on this subject being developed.
I'm not sure what to ask - how this is a violation of NPOV, or whether NPOV even applies to guidelines. Snowspinner 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
This guideline starts off by stating that Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances.
Then it ends up stating: Frequently redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the relevant category; with strong emphasis on both Frequently and significantly. Let me be perfertly clear here. The word Frequently must go! The word significantly must go!
Attempts to neutralize the last section have been rebuffed with comments that defining redundancy is redundant, qualifications should not be given, and that it is all self-evident. Sorry, but there is nothing self-evident about a written guideline that purports to state that lists are appropriate in different circumstances, yet concludes that is never possible since lists are automatically frequently redundant with categories. That lists must past an extra unspecified burden of being significantly better.
Therefore, I am proposing that both redundancy be defined, how both lists and ASB can demonstrated that they can duplicate categories and yet not be redundant with categories be explicitly explained and expanded upon. This is the entire objective of this guideline and thus must be explicitly pointed out or operationally defined in a separate section. -- John Gohde 17:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let us just suppose that Lists are indeed frequently redundant with categories. So, what? That state of being true is simply not a disadvantage of using a list. Thus I will delete this irroneaous listing since it is not a disadvantage any more than being born black is a disadvantage. Is not being black redundant with being white? I don't see any disadvantage, here. Either explain, or I will delete. -- John Gohde 22:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What other project pages are redundant with this? (I thought you meant project in the sense of a wikiproject - my bad. Perhaps had you used a talk page to explain in more detail than the edit summary allows you?) I have trouble with this, as this was one of the earlier guidelines written following the creation of categories, and it's long been used as the operating structure for Templates for Deletion, so I really don't think "not policy" covers it. Snowspinner 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Just what might this functionality be? I count 6 advantages of a list, plus 1 more pending database operation confirmation to only 3 advantages of categories. Considering the inconvenience that they present to users of Wikipedia, I see no added functionality. What I see is an arbitrary consensus to use categories, even when lists have been historically an acceptable and proven approach. -- John Gohde 22:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am challenging the assertion that All categories are linked together, created a web of knowledge is an adantage of categories. List of glossaries was created in 2002. It effectively creates a web of knowledge that potentially covers the entire scope of Wikipedia. All that is needed is a little work, to make sure that all areas are covered. We might need to add a glossary of perverse knowledge. -- John Gohde 23:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of Synergy, how are categories, lists, and ASBs supposed to exist together on Wikipedia without competing with each other? Shouldn't there be an entire section on this in this guideline in order to avoid unnecessary battles down the line? -- John Gohde 00:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't see:
as being clearer or in any way preferable to
I shall assume John thinks of this as a good change. Why is it a good change? - David Gerard 23:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category." That is not a "disadvantage"; That is a "usage note". If it is to stay in the article, it needs to be moved to the appropriate section. - Pioneer-12 02:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)