Wikipedia talk:Root page/Archive 1

message: This is something I have introduced into several pages, and would like to suggest as a useful concept. It should probably have a label as is the case for 'disambiguation page' --Lindosland 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: first talk

message: Obviously, there are a lot of cases where such a page is useful. But the proposed implementation isn't exactly what I want.  
*Really, all pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title could be root pages.  We just need some nice well-known text somewhere that make this clear, so that the disambiguation warriors don't strip the pages to lists of entries — a problem well documented on numerous complaints and talk pages!
*I suggest that the "Multi-stub pages" section be moved up to "When to disambiguate" (to clearly indicate that the disambig template not be used — in fact it's in the wrong section now, so I'll do that right away), and also copied to WP:GTL and MOS:DP and others.
*A formal name for such pages would be good, such as root or signpost.  A "better name discussion" for these pages might be needed! 
:--William Allen Simpson 07:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's avoid "signpost" as this presents confusion beside Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, unfortunately. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Wikipedia talk:Root page is a better place for the naming discussion? Thanks/wangi 15:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming? (section of material moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation]]) 

message: Gives me a sense of deja-vu - this is exactly like the signpost articles I put up for deletion a month back: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles. I'll list root pages later on this evening. Thanks/wangi 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja-vu alone is no reason for deletion. I think there is need for this or something like it, and so it seems  did someone before me. I cannot compare my solution to the previous attempt since its been deleted. I'd like to see further discussion, as the concept seems to solve a problem I keep coming across. I did get a 'well done' message after using this approach to sort out a call for 'cleanup' on Animation. --86.135.217.246 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja vu isn't my reason for deletion - i've given my reason on the MfD page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Root page. Also see the two linked discussions above. Thanks/wangi 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to reply to the implication on the closed MfD that I was acting in bad faith here. When I put the page up for deletion it hadn't been discussed in any expected place and accepted policy/guidelines we being edited to include it as if it were policy. Sure, I jumped the gun. Also the idea is so similar to signpost articles which were MfD'd at the end of Novemeber that I expected the ultimate consensus here would also be to delete. Additionally I was the one who actually added the  tag. Thanks/wangi 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deja vu 

message: A root page may be a useful solution for the problem that a disambiguation page hardly allows explanation of the common aspects.--Patrick 12:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of the common aspects

message: If the Root pages concept is adopted, it would likely be useful to articulate some formal relationship between Root pages and Portals.  Portals are designed to be introductions to broad topic areas while Root pages are (so I'm interpreting) meant to be introductions to topic areas as well.  One transition method from the current state to one including Root pages could be examining each of the Portals and introducing a "Root pages" section in each that would provide a hierarchy step.  I would, in fact, suggest that this change be considered as a preceding step before implementation of a Root page tag across a significant number of articles.  I would further suggest that the tag be implemented, if adopted, via a WikiProject that would coordinate Portal representation and article tagging.  This would be in addition to the actions of individual editors, not in replacement of. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone differentiate this project more from Wikipedia:Portals? I fail to see any significant difference between the two. ~MDD4696 01:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between Root pages and Portals 

message: Following the use of a Robot all instances of Root page were changed to the full form Wikipedia:Root page. The redirect was deleted.
I feel this was premature and have asked for it to be reversed. My feeling is that use of the shortened form Root page is easier, and there is nothing wrong in using the Redirect. There are several precedants for this, such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which has several redirects in place including Disambiguation and Disambiguation page. --Lindosland 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't put things about Wikipedia process in the main article namespace. Not even with a redirect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Redirect  from Root page to Wikipedia:Root page 

message: In attempting the refine the text I have found it necessary to clarify several principles. 
A Root page cannot have a Root page. (avoids endless hierarchy)
A page labelled as a Root page, should not be listed in another article as a root page unless it is considered the Root page of that article. (Else the unifying object of the idea is defeated.)
An article can list two pages as its Root pages? Possible, but not recommended (example given).
Having clarified that this is about 'star' association, not hierarchy, I wonder if Root is the best word. Other possibilities might be 'Core page', 'Intro page', 'Topic page', 'Bonding page'.  --Lindosland 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Hub page is the ideal name for this idea! I hope I have not 'spoke' too soon! :-))--Light current 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refined text clarifies use as the 'core of a star' 

message: As I interpret it, looking at Animation as an example, a root page is an article which introduces a topic in its broadest form and serves as a hub to more specific topics (that's what I think they should be called, "hub articles"). Unless I've misinterpreted, isn't this guideline simply a codification of what has emerged naturally in varying forms, or is it something new? For instance, the only difference I see between the root-pagified Animation example and, say, Philosophy or War, is that Animation has italicized meta-messages inserted into it and the others do not. The messages don't seem to add much benefit and if they were removed (on say Animation) the article would stand perfectly fine. Another point this guideline discusses is linking back to the "root page" from more specialized ones. Yet most child articles I have seen link to their parent naturally within the first sentence, so...why do it again? The guideline also says something about providing an easy way for editors and readers to find a list of associated topics, but isn't that what categories and "List of X topics" articles are for? So far this guideline smells of instruction creep and is somewhat redundant with Wikipedia:Summary style, at least by my interpretation. Can its purpose be clarified?—jiy (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking along similar lines as jiy. Sure, animation is a "Root page" where a general topic branches off into more specific articles. But ideally this what every encyclopedia aritcle should be. I don't see the need to brand an article as a Root page. --Commander Keane 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, almost every article can be though of like this. For example the Boeing 737 article doesn't go into the whole explanation about what a jet aircraft is - it just links to jet aircraft. Likewise here why should cell animation simply state it's a form of animation and let the user follow the link? Why can't the animation article simply just refer to other types of animation, why the need for complication? Thanks/wangi 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm baffled.  Everything is linked to everything else - how do you pick a real "root" other that perhaps "Cogito, ergo sum" ? An encyclopedia with a million spelling and grammar errors needs good articles well-written and edited more than it needs another arbitrary hierarchical scheme. --Wtshymanski 18:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This just adds another layer of cruft to the project. I don't want to be told when I visit an article that it's a "root article". Says who? What if I disagree with the structure? The whole thing is annoying. If the purpose is to help editors, then the structure should be hidden away where only editors can see it, and only editors who subscribe to the idea at that. Anyway, hierarchies are so nineteenth-century. --Heron 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose is unclear 

message: I am reviving this concept as I see its use has been taken up on a few 'big' pages, and also some useful additions have appeared without comment, like the template.
There have been no major objections here, but there has been some support, as well as useage.
I submit that contributors here who question the concept seem to have dismissed it too quickly, without taking in the important differences. I have explained these in relation to disambiguation and signpost article and summary style.
I think this is a concept that will only be fully accepted and understood as people find it useful. Those who think it duplicates other concepts are wrong, and need to study the issues more carefully.  Hub page was not something I had seen, but it is hierarchical, and there has been much criticism of hierarchical attempts as leading to confusion. It is also not nearly as thoroughly defined as Root page. No, we don't want hundreds of methods, but we can live with a few and let useage be the test. I propose leaving things as they are. If the useage grows to a significant level then I will call for support here, on the talk pages of all articles using my method. If it does not, then no harm is done. --Lindosland 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revived as it is in use on some 'big' pages 

message: I don't think that a root page and a hub page are similar, and I love this idea and think it should become policy. Let me know how I can help. -Visorstuff 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: As the instigator of the 'hub page' idea, I am pleased to find that others are aware of the need for a concept of this sort for large subjects with many branches. 
I was not aware of the Root page page until today. I will take some time to study the root page idea and it may be that they might perform (or could be made to perform ) the same function and are therfore worthy of merging. However, I will reserve judgement for now.--Light current 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hub pages