Wikipedia talk:Root page

message: I was looking up some information regarding Motion capture today, and I happened upon the  template. I didn't know anything about this "Root page" project, so I hope that my opinion will be valuable as an outside view.
My first thought when I visited the page was "What the heck?" The template made no sense to me. I had gotten to the Motion capture page from Google, so seeing the words "Back to..." at the top was somewhat jarring. I was not interested in general Animation topics, and if I were, I would've just searched Wikipedia for them.
I feel very strongly that this template disrupts the overall Wiki structure and experience; it is counterintuitive based on the way I browse. I believe myself and many others do not browse in a linear fashion, rather, I skip from one article to another, sometimes searching, sometimes using bookmarks, sometimes clicking links. Saying "back to" only makes sense when you've arrived at an article from the root page, something I would speculate as being a rare occurrence due to the above statement.
I don't think that having a link back to the root article is entirely out of place, but I also don't think it should be placed at the top of the article. I believe the most appropriate place to put the link would be in the See also section. ~MDD4696 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying a very relevant post by The Photon from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics#Root page proposal:
Tools are already available :
We already have several good tools to use to tie a group of articles together. 
*The first is just good writing, and the use of explicit crossreferences. 
For example, the Diode article might begin, "In Electronics, a diode is a...". This achieves everything that a backlink template does, without distracting from the article in front of the reader. 
*Another tool is Wikipedia:Summary style. 
Since it doesn't create categories, this isn't exactly the same for editors. But for readers, the experience is the same. Whether the main article in Summary style must summarize the detail articles is just a matter of style. If there are really hundreds of detail articles (as in Electronics), the summary could naturally be reduced to a single sentence, or membership in a list.
*A third is the Wikipedia:Navigational templates. 
A well-designed template could tie a group of articles together for its editors, even create a category for those articles; and it wouldn't distract readers. 
*A fourth tool is list articles. 
A central hub list could be created to allow editors to keep track of all the articles relevant to their area. If it is really just for editors, it could go in the User Talk namespace.
*A fifth tool is Project pages. 
Use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics page as a hub for all the electronics articles. 
*A sixth tool is "What links here?". 
If you, as an editor, want an overview of the articles related to electronics, just click on "what links here".
*A seventh tool is the :Wikipedia:Portal page.
Articles are the main organizing structure of Wikipedia:One of the most enjoyable things about reading Wikipedia is the interconnectedness of the articles. By following links, you can explore a dense mesh of related articles. 
The proper place for a larger document, that leads a reader along a particular path to understanding a broad field, is Wikibooks.
Good writing is the best solution for readers: If the article is well-written and well-linked, it should be clear without any props where to go next for more information about a broad topic. So if in doubt, just write the articles clearly. 
The Photon 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ~MDD4696 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I want this template deleted.  The demon of hierarchy, which had been staved off when Subpages were deprecated, once again rears its ugly head. --Smack (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which template exactly, and where? All the templates I put up were valid as navigation templates under Wiki policy. By chosing to list only a selection of all possible pages, according  to principles stated here I did not prevent anyone from doing a full listing, as is done already on many pages, I simply offered a neater version. Do you want all navigation templates deleted? --Lindosland 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was probably referencing . Smack, the template was nominated for deletion and consensus was for deletion (see its talk page), but it was kept for discussion here. ~MDD4696 23:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding {{tl|backlink}} 

message: I have added the "shortcut text" to the page: WP:ROOT. Somethig simple, but normally needed; I hope this will make going to this page quicker and easier. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut

message: You all realize that Wikipedia used to have root → sub functionality, right?  It was intentionally removed.  Read through Wikipedia:Subpages and all of the links at the bottom. — Omegatron 00:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I didn't realise this. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the concept adds to Wikipedia's functionality greatly, while TAKING AWAY NOTHING. I note that the function was ended because of the problem that sub-pages are often perceived as being related to many other pages, and this is a problem we are well aware of, but I have attempted to solve it by stipulating that a page can only 'belong' to one root page. This does not seem to have been considered before. While some people seem to feel agrieved at the idea of a page 'belonging' to a root page, and suggest that editors may be competing for 'possession', I still do not think this need be a big issue in practice, and the idea that we are taking away 'freedom' in some way is mistaken. I think it is better for a page to be attached in a grouping of some sort than none at all, provided we are all sensible about it and realise that there must remain a degree of arbitrary decision in the matter. I see that most of the nav templates I put on Electronics have been left in place, and I find them so useful that it would seem very retrograde to take them down. Yes, some pages could equally belong to other topics, but it seems clear to me that we lose something and gain nothing by taking away the templates. Most of the Electronics pages were already in the Electronics category and no other, suggesting no conflict. The few, like Electronic noise that fall across two topics, are easily resolved by the creation of two pages, with different emphasis, each pointing to the other in 'see also'. In fact, such topis tend already to have two pages, as one of the main weaknesses of Wikipedia is failure of editors to realise that their topic actually exists in a different form in another field. Thus, when I first came to 'nIn the extreme we could solve the problem with 'shortcut' pages - pages that just contained a redirect to be used much like the 'alias' or shortcut on our computer desktops. I have not the slightest desire to tie Wikipedia down to an imaginary hierarchy, but it is clear to me that the benefits of grouping pages in the way we think 'most obvious' are enormous. The potential for the automatic generation of the nav templates is also very attractive. The problem of chosing the 'most obvious' grouping is very similar to the problem of choosing the most obvious topic when considering disambiguation. The official advice there is 'choose the topic the user would expect to come up', and that's what I advise for grouping pages - chose the root page the user would most expect the page to be attached to. In both cases there will be some people who think differently, but what does it matter how a page is grouped? --Lindosland 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you have that "one of the main weaknesses of Wikipedia is failure of editors to realise that their topic actually exists in a different form in another field"? Once someone does realize the connection, why isn't adding a normal link in the See also section or merging the pages sufficient? And to your point about choosing the most obvious groupings: Categories already allow us to group pages, and put them in more than one group without conflict. ~MDD4696 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the subpage system only allowed a page to be a part of a single parent page as well, so your system isn't really any different than it was.  I don't actually see any major differences between subpages and your system, aside from the navboxes, which don't fundamentally change the idea.  - Flooey 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this whole root/branch structure is terrible. I won't bother stating my reasons, which have been well explained by many others here and in the archives. I would like to comment on Lindosland's repeated suggestion that articles falling into two "root" hierarchies are best handled by forking the article into two separate articles (see his comments on Electronic noise, above). This is really stupid, and the very fact that he suggests it is one of the strongest arguments for dumping the whole root/branch thing as fast as possible. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it builds connections between fields. An article that is relevant to editors in two fields will eventually reflect both points of view, and can then be a benefit to people in both fields and encourage "browsing" between the two.--Srleffler 04:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misread me somehow. Nowhere do I say that forking will happen anyway. What should happen instead is that when the same concept is used in several fields a single article should develop that reflects both/all points of view and compares and contrasts them. This emphasizes the similarities between fields and encourages and supports "browsing" from one to another. The fact that you are encouraging separating a single concept into separate articles, each reflecting one field's view of that concept, is for me a strong reason to trash this entire "root page" approach. It does not suit the way information is best organized on wikipedia. Your root page idea encourages myopic editing, by attempting to put pages into subject-area boxes. --Srleffler 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: With all respect to Lindosland, I agree with those who think this is a bad idea. In particular, I think there is a lot of POV context in deciding what article precedes what article in a hierarchy. For example, Ophthalmology was previously edited to backlink to Optics. In my opinion, optics is only a part of ophthalmology and should not precede it in a hierarchy. I do think Srleffler makes an excellent point. I've noticed that he and I are in different fields but now and then share some overlap in the articles we monitor. I would like to believe that Wiki benefits from the different take each of us brings to those articles. -AED 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Root pages and subpages 

message: There are lots of references to "linking", "backlinking" etc. What does all this mean?  Is this talking about infoboxes, category links, normal wiki links, or what? Stevage 09:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term backlink got introduced by others, as this idea evolved. Otherwise, I think the project page expains what is meant quite clearly. No, this is not about anything else, it's about something new, though I confess that attempts to please objectors have led us round in circles somewhat, and the 'backlink' idea has now been dropped in favour of just a special form of the Navigation templates. Just take a look at Electronics to see what is now proposed in action. --Lindosland 13:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is "linking"?

message: Unfortunately, although well-intentioned, this project is not a good idea. Here's why: information is not inherently hierarchical. Different topics cross-cut one another, and it is often unclear whether one topic is a sub-topic of another, or vice versa, or whether the two are actually pairs. The semantic relationships between articles do not form a tree of succesive specializations, but have a vastly more complex toplogical structure, with multiple types of semantic relationship existing between different sets of objects, including asymmetric, symmetrical and cyclic relationships. See ontology (computer science) for why this is a hard problem.
As other posters here have stated, Wikipedia used to have a page/subpage structure, and, after extensive discussion, it was removed for exactly these reasons. 
According to Wikipedia:Subpages:
:"Subpages were originally used on Wikipedia to differentiate between subjects to create topical hierarchies of articles, but this proved unworkable because articles tend to belong in more than one hierarchy. The present system of disambiguation was adopted instead, and the Wikipedia:Do not use subpages policy had to be rigorously enforced, as well as retroactively applied. The new (mid-2004) category system supports hierarchical organization while still allowing an article to belong to multiple categories."
Since that time, both categories and portals have been added to Wikipedia, and already seem to accomplish much of what you are seeking to do: perhaps you might be interested in seeing how you could best work within these frameworks, perhaps as a WikiProject? -- The Anome 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this is a bad idea... 

message: Copied from User:lindosland talk, as part of a discussion about not spoiling the appearance of pages:
:Fair enough.  On pages with no image at the top, I think your navbox works pretty well.  When there is an image there, placement requires more judgement, and individuals opinions will vary as to what is best.  I have noticed that the Contents box self-adjusts its width, and it can be a good place to put the navbox, at least for screen sizes of 800x600 to 1024x786, which should cover typical screens today except for hand-held displays. The question which will remain is, how do we deal with a proliferation of navigation methods (categories, portals, various navbox templates, "See also" lists, etc.)  I guess we will just have to keep experimenting, and probably several methods will coexist.  --Blainster 19:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for care in template placement 

message: Lindosland said this: "Perhaps you have not realised that I want the branchlist templates to pop up completely automatically on pages just as the index does, using a specially modified form of parametric template. This can be done with appropriate software implementation." - I don't understand what this means? What is this index? Can anyone explain?
* By 'index' I mean 'contents list box' which is already created automatically on pages with sections - sorry I should probably not have called it the index. --Lindosland 11:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and question 

message: Template:Branchlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Omegatron 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the proposal at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Branchlist is written as a multiple-template nomination for deleting all of the templates in :Category:Branchlist. To provide fair warning, and to encourage all interested parties to vote, I have copied the TfD tag to all the articles in this category.--Srleffler 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Branchlist 

message: Many recent objections to the concept have centred on the instrusiveness of the templates when placed at the top of the page, especially where this upsets existing image placement and creates untidy alignments. I am persuaded by these objections, which show how 'live trialling' is useful in revealing unforseen problems. I have therefore re-written the recommendations on this page, under bold headings for added clarity, including the recommendation that the template should be placed alongside the 'see also' listing on the RHS where a blank space normally exists. This is a tidy alternative to the 'Branch pages' listing that was suggested by some, and much easier to update, as edits take effect across all pages of course. I suggest that this nullifies many of the votes for template deletion from people who had not bothered to register this objection here. --Lindosland 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised rules  -  template placement 

message: John Reid 07:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No