Talk:List of Fourier analysis topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shouldn't this just be a category of some sort? —Steven G. Johnson 20:40, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting question. Look at list of lists of mathematical topics (not to be confused with list of mathematical topics). Should all of those be just categories too? I think that list began before categories existed. I'm not yet accustomed to thinking in terms of categories on Wikipedia. What difference between list of combinatorics topics and the categories called Combinatorics explains the difference in purposes between categories and such lists, if any? Michael Hardy 23:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My impression is that most of the list of pages pre-date categories, and that categories were intended to (largely) replace them. (The only exception might be list of pages that have some kind of informational content in addition to simply the list.) —Steven G. Johnson 04:48, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Isn't this list completely redundant now we have Category:Fourier analysis? Any objections to marking it for deletion? Nuwewsco 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably so. Verify that everything is covered in the cat, then delete it or redirect it to the cat. Dicklyon 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, Michael Hardy asserts, without reference, in his revert summary, that "This is crap. We've had this discussion at enormous length over several years with the same result every time." Michael, I don't see any evidence of previous discussion here; where are you referring to? Dicklyon 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is evidence of previous discussion on this page. After Stevenj's comment, the discussion moved to various user pages including his. But obviously, the GENERAL discussion of whether categories should supersede topics lists is elsewhere, since this is only ONE topics list.

I regard categories as far inferior to topics lists. To repeat for the zillionth time (OK, maybe the tenth or fifteenth in almost five years I've been a registered user here):

And see lists of mathematics topics, a featured list, chosen as an example of Wikipedia's best work. You seem to propose to destroy that.
  • Lists can be annotated; categories cannot (see e.g. list of rivers by length).
  • Lists can contain invisible links to talk pages, which cause edits to those pages to appear when the user clicks on "related changes" (thus: [[Talk:ABCology | ]]); categories cannot.
  • Red links to not-yet-existing articles can be added to lists but not to categories.
  • Alternative names for the same item can be added to lists, but can be included only by including redirects in the category.
  • Lists can give context or commentary for any specific entry; whereas in categories only the name of the article is given.
  • The history of the membership of an item in a category cannot be determined; with a topics list it can.
  • Categories can only use alphabetical order; they cannot use historical chronological order, or order from biggest mountain to smallest, or ordered in some way that is natural for the subject matter (have you ever seen the months of the year in alphabetical order? April August December February January July June March May November October September).
  • Lists can link to specific sections inside other articles.
  • Lists can be moved. You can't move a category containing 400 items except by editing all 400 articles separately. Moves have happened with lists of mathematics topics and list of mathematics articles, and the reasons for those moves had to do with the evolution of Wikipedia over time, in ways that could not have been foreseen when the lists were created. And the number of items in the list of mathematics articles is not just 400; it's many thousands.

(I'm probably missing some items in this list. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.)

More later.... Michael Hardy 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Although there may have been a discussion previously, the only thing anyone can see of it is the first three entries above. There's no indication that it went somewhere else (and where), or more importantly, that some kind of consensus was reached. It would have been helpful had someone included a link to it here at the time!
Your comments above are understandable, though really only a justification for using lists and getting rid of categories in general, and not specifically relevant to this article
As I mentioned previously though, I'm more than happy for this page to remain if there's a good reason for it; though in which case, wouldn't it make sense therefore to remove Category:Fourier analysis? Nuwewsco 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing the category doesn't make sense in any case. As for whether this "list" article makes sense, I think that depends on whether someone intends to add some useful organizational aspect to it. Since it's presently just a flat list, it doesn't add any value beyond what the category does, but the potential is there, Michael Hardy explains. Michael, do you have a plan for it? Dicklyon 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people will tell you that there are advantages as well as disadvantages of cateogores. It is well-established Wikipedia policy that there are reasons for both to exist. At any rate, it is a mystery why anyone would single out this one particular case instead of going after the thousands of others along with it.

I don't have very specific plans for this particular list---yet. It's one of many things I may get to eventually. Michael Hardy 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)