Wikipedia talk:Root page/Archive 3

message: Should the backlink template not use the pipe | as in:
  
--Light current 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see what you mean by this, though I just copied the format of the rootpage template. What would the pipe achieve?
Well this just achieves compatibility with the 'Main page' template, the 'merge' template etc and maybe makes it easier for people to use rather than having to remember a special format for this template.--Light current 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe so. The  template, which I didn't create, appears to have a : at the start which forces a new line. I'm not sure where you want a line feed. I did include a space in the backlink template at the end, which seems to work. --Lindosland 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated all the syntax (the template and the inclusions). This is the correct way. Anyone reverting me better finish the job (if you be bold, you should also be thorough). Root page needs to be updated too, but I think in general that tag is a bad idea. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If backlinking is remove, we will end up with little more than summary style. I believe backlinking is ESSENTIAL to easy navigation. Thas why I proposed hub pages so novice people especially could get around the subject quickly and easily without having to wade thro' a mass of (possibly)confusing blue links. Go forward - go back. What could be simpler than that?--Light current 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think that the problem could be stated in Go forward - go back terms. When wiki browsing you can go in many directions and the only one that knows where do you came from is your web browser. Probably go up - go down are better terms. i.e. more clearer terms to describe semantic (?) movements that are almost always appliables and that could serve to implement the loose grouping mechanism that seems needed. ALoopingIcon 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with that. Go up/down Yes! OR go deeper or shallower--Light current 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are quite right. Deeper is a much clearer term than down...ALoopingIcon 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlinks 

message: :This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys.
Support. I think a few minor tweaks may be necessary but the system is working well so far.--Light current 07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption of Root page Proposal - Voting. 

message: We would be pleased if all objectors to (and supporters of)  Root page now joined the discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics on this subject. THe more input we have from as many concerned editors as possible, the more likely a workable solution satisfying everyone will emerge sooner rather than later. If you know anyone having an interest in this subject, please let them know of the discussion ASAP. THanks--Light current 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all objectors 

message: I refer this admirable page to some possible root concepts in semantics:
*compounds, 
*another is the study of relations between different linguistic expressions (
**homonymy, 
**synonymy, 
**antonymy, 
**polysemy, 
**paronyms, 
**hypernymy, 
**hyponymy, 
**meronymy, 
**metonymy, 
**holonymy, 
**exocentric, and 
**endocentric). 
Semantics includes the study of 
*thematic roles, 
*argument structure, and its linking to 
*syntax. 
Semantics deals with 
*sense and reference, 
*truth conditions, and 
*discourse analysis. 
Pragmatics
:Pardon?--Light current 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussions and this article appear to be focussed on meronymy and holonymy. However there are other semantic relationships. --Ancheta Wis 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic concepts 

message: Here's a new approach which combines navigational templates with the Root page concept, so that each has only 10 or so links on it. By combining the backlink and the page title on the first line I've created a very workable system. Try navigating around Electronics or Noise now - it's easy peasy! I deliberately used the name Branchlist in every template so that they could be recognised and swapped for parametric templates of the form branchlist|rootpage|hubpage by a software 'bot' later on, if we can get the special parametric template form working with auto-fillout. --Lindosland 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a lot,but I've finished now on the two topic Electrics and Noise and feel that they are in much better shape now ready for the attempted cleanup to be finished off. I am finding that the best way to work out the solution we seek is to try this out with real pages, and it's probably the best way to demonstrate the value in the idea since we are finding this so difficult. I hope not to upset anyone of course, but really the electronics pages were such a mess in places that I felt it best to try to fix some things, for example I changed a couple of names for uniformity. I've commented everything, and feel that since some of these pages have been marked for tidying up for a long time, I should be forgiven for trying to improve matters on a big scale. Glad you like it. I'm off to bed, and will then rest and take in further comments. Personally I feel this is it, pending automation. --Lindosland 03:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New approach - branchlist templates