Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's awful having a list of things on one line because the diffs don't work properly. -- Newhoggy | Talk 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housekeeping suggestion

Is there reason that we're maintaining all of these lists (which I suspect are out of date anyway) when self-maintaining categories would do the same thing? I propose:

  1. deleting Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Politicians/Have articles Y Done
  2. removing all blue links from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians#Red links (MHR's) (need to verify dab status on each 1st) Y Done
  3. removing all blue links from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians#Checklist of Members of the Senate 1901-2004 (need to verify dab status on each 1st) Y Done
  4. Change 2 and 3 above to bulleted lists (per Newhoggy's comment above) Y Done
  5. removing Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians#Existing (Senators & MHR's) Y Done
  6. populating Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives with member articles. This would mean that (for example), Fred Daly is in Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for Martin as well as Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives. The supercat can then be used for related changes
  7. ditto for Senators, although it seems to be being done slightly haphazardly at Category:Members of the Australian Senate. eg. Andrew Bartlett

Thoughts/comments? —Moondyne 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to 1-5. 6 and 7 seem to contradict the purpose of the hierarchical category structures and anyway will only alert you to new articles if originators add the wider categories, in apparent violation of normal wiki principles.--Grahamec 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. There's exceptions to every rule and per WP:SUBCAT and WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines pt2 I think this could be one. Categories don't necessarily form a tree structure and when there's a valid reason to have an article in a category as well as its subcategory I can't see the harm. I'll get moving on the 1st few points anyway. —Moondyne 13:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
All your suggestions seem wise. I'm surprised that first page still exists – I thought I'd deleted most of those sort when I went through these pages a few months back.--cj | talk 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)