G'day Bryan,
Marc Riddell wrote:
And have them in my face as the first thing I see!?! PASS! :-)
I note that in the Classic skin the categories are wrapped in <p class='catlinks'></p> when displayed but that #catlinks {display: none;} in my standard.css doesn't make it disappear like I was able to do with#stub {display:none;}
<snip />
Apologies if you already know this and I'm merely responding to a typo, but have you tried
.catlinks { display: none; }
?
"catlinks" is a class, but "stub" is an ID. Classes are referenced in stylesheets with a full stop, and IDs with a hash mark.
(While we're talking about people who obsess about categories, I noticed the other day that someone had taken the time to write a bot to tag uncategorised articles, but apparently does not bother taking the time to actually categorise said articles. It's either a brilliant microcosm of the sad state of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, or I'm being silly. We report: you decide!)
Cheers,
On 4/11/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
(While we're talking about people who obsess about categories, I noticed the other day that someone had taken the time to write a bot to tag uncategorised articles, but apparently does not bother taking the time to actually categorise said articles. It's either a brilliant microcosm of the sad state of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, or I'm being silly. We report: you decide!)
Since there's no special pages to list uncategorised pages, it's useful. You're being silly. There's a certain joy in wading through the list of uncategorised pages and finding homes for them.
Steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Uncategorizedpages
?
Steve Bennett wrote:
Since there's no special pages to list uncategorised pages, it's useful. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/04/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Uncategorizedpages
?
Steve Bennett wrote:
Since there's no special pages to list uncategorised pages, it's useful.
Although that page isn't live, but it was cached recently (yesterday). I tend to use [[Category:Uncategorised pages]] (or [[Category:Uncategorised since February]]).
Gallagher Mark George wrote:
Apologies if you already know this and I'm merely responding to a typo, but have you tried
.catlinks { display: none; }
?
"catlinks" is a class, but "stub" is an ID. Classes are referenced in stylesheets with a full stop, and IDs with a hash mark.
Ah! I knew there had to be something simple I was overlooking. Thanks! I like categories myself, but this will be an excellent tool to suggest to people who despise them for whatever reason. :)
(While we're talking about people who obsess about categories, I noticed the other day that someone had taken the time to write a bot to tag uncategorised articles, but apparently does not bother taking the time to actually categorise said articles. It's either a brilliant microcosm of the sad state of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, or I'm being silly. We report: you decide!)
My own pet peeve along these lines is articles with no categories other than various subject-specific stub categories added by subject-specific stub tags. Why go to the trouble of sorting and specifying the type of stub it is and not add the actual categories at the same time? Seems like such a trivial extra step, we could even have a bot doing the work.
On 4/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
My own pet peeve along these lines is articles with no categories other than various subject-specific stub categories added by subject-specific stub tags. Why go to the trouble of sorting and specifying the type of stub it is and not add the actual categories at the same time? Seems like such a trivial extra step, we could even have a bot doing the work.
IMHO it is a mistake to criticise people for not doing work. We can criticise them when they do harm. But doing 10 minutes of work, and not the other 2 minutes...well, that's perfectly valid in the wiki world, imho.
In any case, I frequently create stubs in areas I know nothing about, and simply don't know what the best categories are. So I might end up using something really generic like "Sports" or "People" or something and letting someone else refine it.
Steve
When I was still editing (before the, ahem, unfortunate circumstances), I found this to be a good way to do things. If I tagged a new article with a generic {{stub}}, often the user who sorted the article into a deeper category also improved it dramatically, in ways that my editing style never allowed me to do. It simply called more human editors to the attention of the article, which is always beneficial so long as they do so in the spirit of collaboration and not in the spirit of combat (which is often the case),
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
My own pet peeve along these lines is articles with no categories other than various subject-specific stub categories added by subject-specific stub tags. Why go to the trouble of sorting and specifying the type of stub it is and not add the actual categories at the same time? Seems like such a trivial extra step, we could even have a bot doing the work.
IMHO it is a mistake to criticise people for not doing work. We can criticise them when they do harm. But doing 10 minutes of work, and not the other 2 minutes...well, that's perfectly valid in the wiki world, imho.
In any case, I frequently create stubs in areas I know nothing about, and simply don't know what the best categories are. So I might end up using something really generic like "Sports" or "People" or something and letting someone else refine it.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
My own pet peeve along these lines is articles with no categories other than various subject-specific stub categories added by subject-specific stub tags. Why go to the trouble of sorting and specifying the type of stub it is and not add the actual categories at the same time? Seems like such a trivial extra step, we could even have a bot doing the work.
IMHO it is a mistake to criticise people for not doing work. We can criticise them when they do harm. But doing 10 minutes of work, and not the other 2 minutes...well, that's perfectly valid in the wiki world, imho.
I'm not really _strongly_ criticizing people for putting the stub tags in (even though I personally consider it a strange waste of time), it just seems to me a silly omission that doesn't actually save them any time or effort. Sort of like if someone were to do a bunch of work adding headers to an article but use '''bold''' text instead of ==header== text and leave it to other editors to come along and fix the syntax.
Also, I don't know how clever the uncategorized-page-tagging bot is, but would the existence of those stub article categories cause the article to be overlooked even though it isn't really categorized? That could be an actual hinderance caused by this.
In any case, I frequently create stubs in areas I know nothing about, and simply don't know what the best categories are. So I might end up using something really generic like "Sports" or "People" or something and letting someone else refine it.
That's usually what I do when I come across uncategorized pages in my random-paging. The thing I was complaining about was articles with stub tags but not even the generic categories that could go along with them (eg, I just came across an article with {{Newspaper-stub}} and {{Houston-stub}} but no categories, so I threw in [[Category:Houston, Texas]] and [[Category:Newspapers]])