Template talk:CatAZ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
NOTE: Template:CategoryTOC is similar to this one. CatAZ is intended for categories that do not have numbered articles (such as people categories) and CategoryTOC is for all others.

Contents

[edit] Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted#Template:CatAZ and Template_talk:CategoryTOC for other talk about this. --Henrygb 00:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for adding a TOC

Do you think it is fair to say that there is no need for a category TOC (CatAZ and CategoryTOC) for categories with less than 400 entries, or categories that will not likely grow to over 400 for a while? I think the point is to be able to find any entry easily. If there are only 2 pages of listings, there is already a one-click way to see all the listings. == Samuel Wantman 01:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For now, these should only be used on very large categories (over 400 is reasonable, I suppose). This will save work when this feature is incorporated into the software. After all, we've lived without it for quite some time. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

[edit] bugzilla:1649

  • Please see bugzilla:1649. Thanks! Gangleri | Th | T 12:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
    To me that says "Bug 1649: PAGENAMEE works only with 7bit characters in {{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}" --Henrygb 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Now I think I see. That points to ro:Discuţie_Format:TOCcat which seem to be about letters with diacritics --Henrygb 23:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we work together on this?

Netoholic claims that we had an agreement about what this template should look like. I don't think that is quite correct. I actually lean a little toward Henrgb's view on this, but made the template look more like CategoryTOC for a few reasons:

First, to make it look like the other TOC's. I think it helps users if there is a similar look and feel to all the TOC's.
Second, to try and avoid a revert war with Netoholic.

My main concern has been to have a one line version, which we have now. I don't care about the borders, or if it says "contents". "Category contents" seems like too much, and redundant. I'd prefer if all of the TOC's were centered on the page. I think they'd look better. Perhaps we could do this for both CategoryTOC and CatAZ?

I hope both Netoholic and HenryGB can state what they like and don't like and why, and perhaps there is something we can all really agree to. Collaberation, when done right, leads to a synergy of ideas instead of endless conflict. -- Samuel Wantman 07:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


For me:

  1. It is incredibly foolish to have two templates which are functionally identical except that one has a number link and the other doesn't. The extra link is harmless and useless, yet of we commonize on one template we reduce m:instruction creep and avoid rework. IIt is only a matter of time until categories using CategoryAZ get a numbered article included, meaning you'd have to change it to CategoryTOC. Later, if that article is reacategorized, you have to go back to CatAZ. We only need Template:CategoryTOC for all categories.
The point of this TOC was that categories comprised of people's names don't have, and shouldn't have entries that start with numbers.
  1. TOCS are aligned left, with the "Contents:" header. This is consistency.
It could be consistantly centered. Where does it say "all TOCS must be aligned left?"
  1. Calling me out by name to "try and avoid a revert war" is poor taste.

-- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Is "incredibly foolish" in good taste?
I did not come here for an argument, I am trying to work things out! -- Samuel Wantman 08:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of an agreement on this. My view is:

  1. Categories do not have automatic tables of contents, unlike articles.
  2. When I did something manual on Category:British MPs [1], it was a navigational tool, not a table of contents, and I wanted it to seem to be part of the page.
  3. Template:CategoryTOC was a good automatic version, but I did not like the design (I did not mind the numbers so much, but I did not like the box or the word Contents).
  4. So this provides an alternative, and a design choice.
  5. My view in the deletion vote was that we should see what happens. Rather like laying a park without paths and seeing from the tracks where people actually walk.
  6. In 1 month - most of the time as a plainer format - it seems to have been roughly as popular as CategoryTOC, though I have not followed up all the "What links here".

So I think we should let the two formats evolve some months longer in their different styles, and see what happens. --Henrygb 12:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know you think CatAZ is essentially the same as CategoryTOC: hence your proposal to delete it, and then your several redirections. But given that the vote was to retain it, could you let it be different for a significant time rather than trying to make it look almost identical without further discussion? It is starting look as if you are trying to prove a point --Henrygb 16:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I have no point to make. The only reason this template is distinct from CategoryTOC is for the number link. These two templates are functionally identical otherwise, and should look exactly alike. You are in the minority of people who like the "no contents, no box" look. -- Netoholic @ 17:26, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
Yet another unsubstantiated point. First, numbers are not the only reason, which is why it does not have TOC in the name. Second, you have to ask the people who are using CatAZ for categories before you know. Why not let the two different styles exist for a while and then see how other editors have acted? --Henrygb 20:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because I hate your style. It looks unprofessional and inconsistent compared to other TOC's. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
I am sorry to have provoked you, though you have given as good as you got. Remember that I may have strong opinions too, but I have not changed CategoryTOC, even though I do not see these navigational aids as Tables of Contents. I will restrict myself to one revert a day at most. --Henrygb 21:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just some notes

  • Dears friends, I was invited to this talk but it is hard to me to get the point. First I want to list here:
  1. go back in Wikipedia history and to remember the "list versus category war " think about if categories are an improuvement as they are implemented now, what happens if servers are down and what is the result of debates relaying on dogma-wars;
  2. at de:Bild Diskussion:Logo Begriffsklärung.png#commons:Template:CategoryTOC.2C en:Template:CategoryTOC.2C en:Template:CatAZ you find links to some dozens of equivalent templates, some are bilingual; I admit that some are created rapidly just to show what is possible and what not;
  3. it was / is a hazard if the original template (with PAGENAMEE) worked; such versions fails with titles containing Baha'i, München, any non 7-bit title etc.
  4. please think "why" such templates have not been used in other Wikipedias so far, if to many people concentrate here and if knowledge gets there where it is required also;
  5. if you worked with categories long time, you know title convention and would never come up with "A-Z is all";
    1. please see sr:Википедија:Tests for Корисник:Bonzo:; in the past all type of constructs as [[category:XXXX|(space)]], [[category:XXXX|!]] and [[category:XXXX|*]] have been used; it may be an advantage to have these characters in the navigational template;
    2. if you "hate" searching you would be happy to address ! directly if this is required;
  6. please do not dispute with "hate"
  7. personaly I prefer flat TOC's (not as sv:Mall:KategoriTOC, fr:Modèle:CategoryTOC etc.), would be hapy if you could change it
    both [[:en:]] versions are fine; I can live both with [2] and [3];
  8. do not implement tricks float left, float right because of the multitude of the categories;
  9. do not generate extra empty lines; this can be done in every category where this is required
  10. to User:Netoholic: "This will save work when this feature is incorporated into the software." Please refer to "This" (I have no clue what you are talking about) when you want that people can follow your taughts. Please think about a balance between "Wikipedia as it is now" and "whatever feature will be included in Wikipedia".
  11. "So I think we should let the two formats evolve some months longer in their different styles, and see what happens." is always the best solution because we can not forsee everything.
    1. variants are always required, especially for Wikipedias in other languages where different alphabets are used; let "people" and not "you" decide what is best and what (how many alphabets, what extra characters, features etc.) is required case by case;
  • Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 02:44, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
P.S. While making some dozens of these templates for different alphabets I found some new interesting details (beside frame, font, fontsize, bold etc.):
  1. a "_" will separate upper from lower case letters
  2. a "~" will separate 7-bit characters from Latin-1 and UTF-8 caharcters (at Wikipedias supporting them)
  3. there are versions without separators between the characters, others using "-" and oters using "·"
  4. old stuff: usage or no usage of "!" and "*" for emphazied titles
There is a trick for ordering a title in a category if this title includes already a template asigning the title to the same category. "Overwrite" the ordering information by adding the [[XXXX|foo]] at the end of this title.
Regards Gangleri | Th | T 21:01, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Template_talk%7ECatAZ_99ef.html"