"The Cunctator" wrote
I'm mildly sorry for taking the shortcut of asking the list about things I could figure out by wading through the insanely complicated policy pages, but here goes-- if you think a page that went through the AfD process was wrongly deleted, what is the proper action?
There is a process, which is apparently full of twisty little passages, all of which sound the same.
How wrong is it for an admin to undelete a page?
If you believe 0WW, it's wrong.
Also, are we trying to get rid of all "list" pages?
This is actually a good question.
I'm not trying to rid enWP of lists, though in a sense they have to some extent had their day. Their functionality is still much superior to categories, in some important respects.
One of those respects is that one could _in principle_ annotate lists, entry-by-entry, justifying each claim. Something of the sort goes on at [[list of polymaths]], I gather, though I don't follow it in detail. No one knows what 'polymath' really means, so in the end we'd get out of that a fairly interesting article of who said of whom and when that polymath applied. That's OK, I think.
Another example in which I'm involved is [[editio princeps]]. I'm kind of staggered that I haven't just come across a list of when the classical Greek and Roman authors were first printed. So, anyway, there's a list being compiled there, mostly from internal enWP evidence. Technically it's fairly illegal to use other articles to source a list like that. In practice (a) the material, if from 1911 EB as it typically is, is highly reputable anyway; and (b) collating such a list is a very good first step, because checking an edition was produced in Venice in 1495 or something of a specific author is a short Google away. In other words, fact-checking something specific is convenient enough.
There have always been some really junky lists around, and some of those could reasonably be axed via AfD. It is not a solution just to use categories, certainly. That hides the problem, rather than solving it: categories look more trustworthy, but some are real rubbish. (Like the Erdos number fiasco ...)
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 11/30/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
I'm not trying to rid enWP of lists, though in a sense they have to some extent had their day. Their functionality is still much superior to categories, in some important respects.
The logical way to combine their functionality would be to put the hand-ordered hand-annotated list in the text section of the [[Category:...]] page. But no one seems to do this, least of all on commons where the ambiguity over pages and categories is a real nuisance.
Steve
And the time that I did that it was attacked and merged.
On 11/30/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/30/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
I'm not trying to rid enWP of lists, though in a sense they have to some extent had their day. Their functionality is still much superior to categories, in some important respects.
The logical way to combine their functionality would be to put the hand-ordered hand-annotated list in the text section of the [[Category:...]] page. But no one seems to do this, least of all on commons where the ambiguity over pages and categories is a real nuisance.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/29/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"The Cunctator" wrote
Also, are we trying to get rid of all "list" pages?
This is actually a good question.
I'm not trying to rid enWP of lists, though in a sense they have to some extent had their day. Their functionality is still much superior to categories, in some important respects.
And don't forget the fact that a list means a group of stubby pieces of information can be joined instead of being dragged out in the separate articles required for a category.
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
One shouldn't be taken as superior, they are just different and complementary approaches to organizing knowledge.
Ec
On 01/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
One shouldn't be taken as superior, they are just different and complementary approaches to organizing knowledge.
The guideline is [[WP:CSL]].
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
One shouldn't be taken as superior, they are just different and complementary approaches to organizing knowledge.
The guideline is [[WP:CSL]].
[[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes]], to save everyone the trouble of looking it up.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
One shouldn't be taken as superior, they are just different and complementary approaches to organizing knowledge.
The guideline is [[WP:CSL]].
That's fine with me. By complementary I refer to both lists and categories as boxes. In categories one starts with the objects (articles) and tries to find the box in which it belongs. In lists one starts with the box and looks for objects to put in it.
Ec