Wikipedia talk:Topics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a bad idea that is noting more than a very laborious way to add categories to articles. These tables add nothing substantive to articles - they contain no content on the subject except its relation to other topics. A more technological solution is needed such as Magnus' cateory system that is still in testing. The area that these tables take up would be much better used by images and tables that add content to the articles. I will start removing these messages later this weekend. If somebody converts these into footers, then I will just move them to the bottom of articles. But the best solution is to link to articles, like religion, that should have such a list. --mav 06:32, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article series. --Jiang 06:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- I already have. And my fear that that idea would spread like a cancer seems to have been proved by the creation of very general category-like tables such as the ones on this page. Note that I don't have such a bad reaction to footers (most of which can and should be replaced as soon as we get a category system). --mav
I think this is a bad idea, too, along with the idea of article series. I seem to have accidentally filled up Wikipedia talk:Article series just complaining about them. I agree with mav that the best solution is to link to pages with lists on them, rather than duplicating the lists all over the place. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that this new category system is going to be much better. Is it too late to have any say about that...? -- Oliver P. 03:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't like the idea of article series from the start, but could not really put my finger on exactly why until now. Unfortunately they have spread all over the place and are being used in highly inappropriate ways (only for navigation and categorization). Footers are OK - at least they don't push valid content down the page. Magnus is known for almost bringing ideas to the point where they could be implemented, but often doesn't do the needed finishing work to make his features happen. From what I surmise, the issue has been how to display the results of such a category system. You will have to join WikiTech-l if you want to be part of the process. --mav
-
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I like footers much more than the boxes at the top... I suppose they're easier to ignore down there, if nothing else. ;) But most of the problems I had with article series (listed on Wikipedia talk:Article series) were independent of the method of display. I don't know how many of the problems I perceived are real, though, and how many were just me being in a bad mood... I'll think about it some more. As for joining WikiTech-l, I'm not sure I could get up to speed with it all now. Maybe I should just resign myself to accepting whatever appears... -- Oliver P. 06:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"The pages should not be protected and if you think they do, then you've been living in a hole for the past few weeks."I thought they were supposed to be. Sorry.
"trying to list every religion in the world in a sidebar was on obviously ridiculous (and not issue with the entire sidebar scheme), as i've demonstrated by populating the list with polythestic religions." Yes, you do know how to go to silly extremes, to prove an obvious point, mr Jiang.-SV
"Now that you've changed it, I am less strongly for deleting as I once was, but prefer that this goes as a footer since it is no different from see also lists, which are placed towards the bottom of an article." Now this is more like it - you see now the potential that wiki (collaboration made easy) can bring - perhaps we can apply this constructive collaboration idea to a task of some sort... like removing those mediawiki:articles on VFD. That would go a long way toward smoothing things over with me. Danke shein-SV(talk) 11:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
