Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 2

message: The contents of these sections have been bouncing around like a caffeine addict doing the Hokey Pokey. So many things have been moved in and out of these sections I'm not sure what should be in there any more. I think it would be helpful if people made a list, on a seperate page, of all the things they think should be listed in these sections, instead of reverting minor changes back and forth. I would especially love to compare Snowspinner's list to John Gohde's list. - Pioneer-12 03:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this the sort of thing this talk page is for?  The following subsections are from the 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 version of the article (one back from current - I couldn't figure out how to get an invariant URL for the current version).  How about if in these sections we propose additions in italics, keep the current ones in regular text, and use strikethrough font for ones we decide to delete (no actual deleting allowed), and comment here before changing the article text?   I added an advantage to lists (not following these conventions) listed below in italics, which is the difference between what's below and the current article.  -- Rick Block 01:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and Disadvantages 

message: # Auto-linking. Create a link to a category on an article page, and a corresponding link to that article will be visible on the category page.
# Multi-directional navigation. A category can contain multiple subcategories, and can also be part of several categories. They naturally organize into a web of knowledge. (See folksonomy.) Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with :Category:Fundamental.
#:Proposed change - The statement simply is not true, since webs of knowledge created with lists or ASBs are easier to use do a better job of presenting the information. -- John Gohde 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Advantages
 - Abilities of categories

message: #Alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetisation).
#Their purpose may not be immediately apparent to new visitors to Wikipedia, since their names, being short, are not very descriptive of their key role in navigation on Wikipedia.
#Categories are not operational on most mirror sites.
#No formatting control over how articles and categories included in a category are shown.
#:Addition of this item to the page was reverted by user:David Gerard as m:instruction creep.  I suggest generalizing the first item to include this notion, perhaps Category listings are automatically generated, in alphabetical order (though you can control the alphabetisation), with no editor control over formatting.  -- Rick Block 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disadvantages of categories

message: # Lists can be annotated. That is they can include additional information beyond the item name. For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can also list when the championship was won.  This ability can be used to explain why a particular article is included in a list, which is sometimes useful for sensitive or controversial lists.  This also allows a list to include similar, but not quite identical, types of articles that might require multiple categories.  One example might be nominees for an award.  In a list, the winners can be indicated.  Conveying the same information in categories requires separate categories for winners and non-winning nominees.
#:Add the bit about similar, but not identical. -- Rick Block 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Advantages
 - Abilities of lists 

message: # Not auto-linked, as categories are.
#:Proposed change - Do we really need to say that not having the properties of a category is a disadvantage?  And, why is this property being singled out? To me, not being auto-linked is clearly an advantage rather than a disadvantage. -- John Gohde 08:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages of lists 

message: # Provide a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no standard format).
# Faster to navigate than a category.
# Although controversial, navigational boxes can be used as an extended see also footer for geographical articles containing direct links to multiple types of articles (cities, counties, etc.).
#:Propose addition. -- Rick Block 04:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Advantages
 - Abilities of article series boxes 

message: # Almost always replaceable with a category. It can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large.
# Article series boxes are often considered unsightly. Multiple boxes are generally considered a blight.
# Often inadvertently push a POV — suggesting that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Many templates go to WP:TFD because they appear to push POV. People often add more series boxes to try to remedy this, exacerbating complaints of unsightliness.
## Wikipedia's NPOV policy might mean that multiple ASBs would be required in some articles in order to avoid the appearance of promoting only one point of view.
##:Proposed change -- John Gohde 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages of article series boxes 

message: Isn't it queer than when categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, that our beloved Main page doesn't have a single category on it?  Isn't it odd, that Main page uses a list, and a template no less, to organize the entire web of information on Wikipedia?  Gee, I wonder why?  Could it be that plain old lists are easier to use than categories? 
Clicking on Article overviews produces one of those dreaded ASBs which just happens to do an even better job of helping visitors to Wikipedia find what they are looking for. Likewise, clicking on BROWSE produces a very useful ASB.  Compare these two ASBs to :Category:Fundamental and try to tell me that the category does a better job of presenting its respective information!
Clicking on SCIENCE unfortunately produces a category which is nothing but a total mess of unorganized information. A bulleted list, intelligently showing relationships, or an ASB would do a much better job.
Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! -- John Gohde 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories DO naturally link together into web of knowledge. The concepts of "every article belongs in a category" and "every category belongs in a category" facilitate this. It's true that they don't necessarily form a well-organized web--but this is due to the distributed nature of Wikipedia: Just like as article takes skill and effort to become high quality, a well organized web of categories takes skill and effort. - Pioneer-12 05:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! 

message: Here are my issues with the current guideline page:
# The article essentially starts with a "how to" for categories repeated from WP:CG.  Not only is this redundant, but it reinforces the notion that categories are the most desirable option.
# The article fails to mention performance implications.  Perhaps we should get a comment from a developer, but from what I can tell large categories are essentially BAD for wikipedia and led to the 200 articles per page limitation.
# The article at least strongly implies the first choice organizational method should be category ("the policy on lists is generally fairly permissive").   IMO, categories have gotten to the point where they are ridiculously overused.  For example, see :category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film), a category for films casting a non-winning nominee for the best supporting actress oscar (note to cburnett if you're reading this - it really isn't anything personal).  I listed this category at WP:CFD, but there were no votes either way.  There is no guideline I can point to to support my contention that this is a ridiculous way to organize these articles and, in this case, a list should be used (see, for example, List of Best Supporting Actor nominees and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films)).
# The article fails to mention a number of significant advantages and disadvantages and doesn't exactly hit the essence of some that it does mention.  Specific examples:
#*Category disadvantage #1 - the crux of this is that category listings are automatically generated in alphabetical order, 200 entries per page.  You can control the order, but nothing else.
#*Category disadvantage #2 - not only is their purpose not readily apparent, their very existence is not readily apparent since with the default skin they are listed at the bottom of an article (often following a large chunk of whitespace).
#*Category disadvantage not mentioned - no real way to provide synonyms (redirects) for categories.
#*Category disadvantage not mentioned - the list of categories an article is in (as opposed to the category listing itself) is auto-generated with no editor control of the formatting (including the order due to template-based categorization).
#*There are more, but I don't have time to re-list them all here (see above, and I'll admit that not all of the additions proposed above are significant).
# Wording for some of the advantages and disadvantages that are listed could stand to be improved.
I wouldn't say I hate categories (yet) - a large percentage of my more than 10,000 edits on wikipedia are category-related.  On the other hand, I definitely think categories are currently overused and it pains me that there isn't a guideline to point to to justify WP:CFD votes for deletion in cases like :category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film).  I'd like this guideline to be the place.  Categories ARE useful, but so are lists and so are navigational templates (and not just for series!).  -- Rick Block 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with your issues listed in this section. But, I still want a separate section added that discusses synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. It is very important that redundancy be precisely defined and how one is supposed to know when redundancy occurs be explicitly pointed out even if some editors think that it is self-evident. -- John Gohde 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the current guidelines 

message: Here you go. This fits in with the whole abilities point of view. I think these sections should replace the current "disadvantages" sections. Interestingly, by thinking in terms of abilities and "when to use, when not to use, and what to use instead", you see how these tools complement instead of compete with each other. It's synergy, baby! - Pioneer-12 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace "Disadvantages" with "When not to use"

message: from an abilities point of view
Categories, lists, and series box synergy
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job. 
Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.
Synergy is the interconnections between categories, lists, and series boxes and the benefits that Wikipedia expects to realize from their intelligent use. Here we will describe a complementary approach where none of these tools compete with each other. This section is a guide on how and when to use each tool.
Applications that categories excel at
# Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are good for categorizing items that are likely to change. Thus, categories are ideal for tracking items like best selling books, NPOV articles, and current events.
Applications not suitable for categories
* xxx
What is getting to be very tiresome is working with a contrary editor, who absolutely refuses to help reach a consensus with at least 2 other editors on anything, even on their own ideas. You are a breed of editor full of ideas, or hot air depending on your perspective, who for what ever reason refuses to articulate their own ideas into workable text in the above box of whatever color.  Either you are either incredibly obnoxious or extremely dense.  
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I consider the abilities idea offically dead until you develop something that I can actually see. Feel free,  to do whatever. I am back to developing the advantages/disadvantages approach.
Just incase you, truly don't know. The editing capabilities of this talk page remain destroyed. -- John Gohde 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewrite of project page