I've been altering templates, as and when I come across them, so that the template itself is **not** included in the category to which it automagically adds articles.
I've been doing this with a cunning combination of the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags, which enable me to add in rubric to the template warning people that it adds articles to a category, and which category.
However I've just been reverted (here: http://tinyurl.com/7b7gw ) with the explanation "rv, it's important for these templates to be a member of their category".
First off, I disagree: I think it clutters up the categories pointlessly with **self references** which are evil(TM).
Second, in this particular case, the template doesn't even appear unless you know which letter to click in the {{CategoryTOC}}.
Third, the template is already documented in the category description (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Book_covers ) perfectly adequately.
Whatever, I'm wondering whether there is a policy on this, since these tags are so new, and if so where is it?
Rather than enter into a revert war, I'd rather thrash it out properly first.
In parallel with this, I'm wondering whether there is a case for having more than one "category-like" namespace, so that we can have a separate set of "categories" for project-related stuff. For example, the automagic [[category:articles which survived deletion]] (or something like that anyway) was removed from the {{oldvfd/oldafd/oldvfdfull/oldafdfull}} templates, on the grounds that it was self-referential. The thing was that it is actually useful information to keep track of, and having one central place for it, rather than scanning laboriously "what links here" lists for several templates. It would have been nice if we could have had something like [[wikipedia-category:articles which survived deletion]] to keep this stuff in.
HTH HAND
On 11/10/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
I've been altering templates, as and when I come across them, so that the template itself is **not** included in the category to which it automagically adds articles.
I've been doing this with a cunning combination of the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags, which enable me to add in rubric to the template warning people that it adds articles to a category, and which category.
However I've just been reverted (here: http://tinyurl.com/7b7gw ) with the explanation "rv, it's important for these templates to be a member of their category".
First off, I disagree: I think it clutters up the categories pointlessly with **self references** which are evil(TM).
Second, in this particular case, the template doesn't even appear unless you know which letter to click in the {{CategoryTOC}}.
Third, the template is already documented in the category description (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Book_covers ) perfectly adequately.
Whatever, I'm wondering whether there is a policy on this, since these tags are so new, and if so where is it?
Rather than enter into a revert war, I'd rather thrash it out properly first. Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
I agree with you. I have had the same idea myself from time to time, and it is more sloth than doubt that has hindered me from doing this. It is ludicrous to say that these templates should be in the category. That implies something that just isn't true: that the template is licensed in the same way as the category. Yes, the category certainly needs to recognise that it is the table that forces the inclusion of the category, but that can easily be done with a link in the category page to the template. This seems a wholly more appropriate method of sorting this problem; one that doesn't imply something false.
Sam
On 11/10/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
I've been altering templates, as and when I come across them, so that the template itself is **not** included in the category to which it automagically adds articles.
I agree. Strongly so. I do believe that if this is done, the template which adds to the category should be linked to from the category description, however.
Perhaps it's my software-development background, but I see categories as an 'is-a' relationship, and find it jarring when people do not follow that relationship with category members. Some seem to use a 'is related to' relationship instead.
I would argue that the 'is-a' relationship helps categories mean something that is much more useful.
Especially in this case, excluding the template itself from the category makes the categorisation more powerful - because the category then contains ONLY pages with the template in them. This is useful for, e.g., automated tools to work with. It also exposes less of the 'guts' of Wikipedia's workings to the reader.
In parallel with this, I'm wondering whether there is a case for having more
than one "category-like" namespace, so that we can have a separate set of "categories" for project-related stuff. For example, the automagic [[category:articles which survived deletion]] (or something like that anyway) was removed from the {{oldvfd/oldafd/oldvfdfull/oldafdfull}} templates, on the grounds that it was self-referential. The thing was that it is actually useful information to keep track of, and having one central place for it, rather than scanning laboriously "what links here" lists for several templates. It would have been nice if we could have had something like [[wikipedia-category:articles which survived deletion]] to keep this stuff in.
I agree strongly with this, too. There are two uses of categories: 'for the reader' and 'for the editor'. The two should probably be distinct somehow.
The work-around with the current situation is to categorise the article's talk page in the 'for the editor' case. Not neat, but it works, and it doesn't break the metaphor that the article is 'for the reader' and the talk page is 'for the editor'.
-Matt
This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET idea's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
# Template messages should be bigger! - ## Too small! ## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others) ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself. ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader" ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." #### "If they do, then they'll get false information." # "Messes up categorizations" # I dont like it!
ROFL SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Tags that warn an article is disputed or subject to controversy need to be on the article page to inform the casual passerby who doesn't think of checking the talk page. And having certain tags on the article itself will also make the fact they need to be improved more visible and may speed that process up.
Shouldn't we be trying to fix the articles to get rid of these tags entirely. If we do, there'd be no discussion on where to put them.
--Mgm
On 11/10/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET idea's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
# Template messages should be bigger! - ## Too small! ## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others) ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself. ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader" ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." #### "If they do, then they'll get false information." # "Messes up categorizations" # I dont like it!
ROFL SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MGM is right, and if nothing else, dispute tags will let certain journalists know that the article they are making fun of isn't exactly our best work.
I, as a reader, was perfectly happy reading a disputed article, and having a knowing chuckle when I found foolish content, rather than the outrage I felt when finding it on an undisputed page. It was one of those untagged outrages that inspired me to edit in the first place ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/11/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Tags that warn an article is disputed or subject to controversy need to be on the article page to inform the casual passerby who doesn't think of checking the talk page. And having certain tags on the article itself will also make the fact they need to be improved more visible and may speed that process up.
Shouldn't we be trying to fix the articles to get rid of these tags entirely. If we do, there'd be no discussion on where to put them.
--Mgm
On 11/10/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET idea's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
# Template messages should be bigger! - ## Too small! ## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others) ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself. ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader" ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." #### "If they do, then they'll get false information." # "Messes up categorizations" # I dont like it!
ROFL SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, I think you are wrong about this - I dont think that excessively overused and large templates which do nothing but say "see the talk page for discussion" do anything useful. If the concern is that the editortags are too small to get noticed or provide any "warning" we can make them bright red and orange - with sprinkles on top. Theres no need for me - an experienced editor to see the verbose version, and claiming that newbies need to see them as warnings is probably lacking of WP:AGF and redundant with our general disclaimer anyway. Everyone knows that the site is perpetually under construction, and everyone knows that controversial articles are going to be disputed. Why keep CAUTION tape and the traffic cones in the way? To point people to our proverbial 'overpaid state highway construction workers?' (i.e. one guy in the hole and eight standing around watching).
SV The guy in the hole --- Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
MGM is right, and if nothing else, dispute tags will let certain journalists know that the article they are making fun of isn't exactly our best work.
I, as a reader, was perfectly happy reading a disputed article, and having a knowing chuckle when I found foolish content, rather than the outrage I felt when finding it on an undisputed page. It was one of those untagged outrages that inspired me to edit in the first place ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/11/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Tags that warn an article is disputed or subject
to controversy need
to be on the article page to inform the casual
passerby who doesn't
think of checking the talk page. And having
certain tags on the
article itself will also make the fact they need
to be improved more
visible and may speed that process up.
Shouldn't we be trying to fix the articles to get
rid of these tags
entirely. If we do, there'd be no discussion on
where to put them.
--Mgm
On 11/10/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com
wrote:
This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET
idea's
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
# Template messages should be bigger! - ## Too small! ## Readers should read (and understand) them,
not just
editors ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others) ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as
opposed to
the article itself. ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign
to the
reader" ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read
the
article." #### "If they do, then they'll get false
information."
# "Messes up categorizations" # I dont like it!
ROFL SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites
in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/10/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
However I've just been reverted (here: http://tinyurl.com/7b7gw ) with the explanation "rv, it's important for these templates to be a member of their category".
It's somewhat hard for me to imagine why it would be important for this -- perhaps asking the editor in question to clarify would at least provide a counter-argument. I mean, as long as the category description has {{Image template notice}} on it, it should be easy enough to tell which template corresponds with what category, which would satisfy any potential benefit that I can think of.
FF
In parallel with this, I'm wondering whether there is a case for having more than one "category-like" namespace, so that we can have a separate set of "categories" for project-related stuff. [...] It would have been nice if we could have had something like [[wikipedia-category:articles which survived deletion]] to keep this stuff in.
You know, I don't get why this was never done. Back when categories were first introduced, I expected this to be an obvious thing. I expected there to be at least eight new namespaces: 'Category', 'Image category', 'Wikipedia category' and 'User category', plus all their corresponding Talk namespaces. Now that we also have templates and the help namespace, there should also be a 'Template category' and a 'Help category' namespace, along with the relevant Talk namespaces. In fact, templates may have come before categories -- I forgot.
In fact, I would go even further and contend that images that are used solely by the Wikipedia namespace should be in a 'Wikipedia image' namespace which in turn should be categorisable by a 'Wikipedia image category' namespace, pages within which you can discuss in the 'Wikipedia image category talk' namespace.
The way I'm phrasing it probably sounds like it's getting really silly, but I mean it quite seriously.
You know, I don't get why this was never done. Back when categories were first introduced, I expected this to be an obvious thing. I expected there to be at least eight new namespaces: 'Category', 'Image category', 'Wikipedia category' and 'User category', plus all their corresponding Talk namespaces.
I think this would help a lot. We've already seen a lot of Categories and Templates that are used primarily for organizing users and user pages, so that we can find Wikipedians by language or interest. The CSD debates that I've been in seemed to show that other users were against users having categories for their user subpages (Category:User:Creidieki/Sandbox4 and related debates).
It would be nice to have a namespace distinction between the categories "Articles about Japanese people" and "Wikipedia users who speak Japanese".
-- Creidieki