Talk:Jay Van Hook Potato Cellar

Generalized categories in stub articles

Another Believer, Greetings and thanks for your contributions, esp the help with NRHP articles. I think for stub articles generalized categories belong. I add the category for the NRHP in the county in the See also section because it is a direct link to a set of articles closely focused that relate to the subject. It is not always easy to find the WP NRHP list page that an article is associated with, like "Jackson County, Kansas City: other". The set of articles most closely related to the property the article is about provide information to the reader that put the article in context in addition to facilitating navigation.

I would argue that the link to the article on Historic preservation is pertinent to NRHP articles. I would prefer it be linked in the prose. I think also articles on the subject but more specific to the subject of the article are possibly available like Historic preservation in New York. I would think Historic Preservation is justified on its own but also rather than delete a more focused substitution is preferable.

I would likewise argue for the inclusion of state and local historical societies as external links. I realize I am on shaky ground policy wise here but I will try a special pleading for stub articles. These societies are sources for information on the subjects of the articles. Some offer information online but the websites provide contact information and published information can be provided other ways than online or requested online.

I am putting forth a case to have a variety of links internal and external that enable readers (and hopefully editors) to access background and find information in Wikipedia articles that have so little information as to be rated as stubs. I apologize in advance if this has been covered in another discussion, if so a pointer would be appreciated. I also realize even if this specifically hasn't been discussed that there is certainly applicable P&G again pointers appreciated. I don't want to waste anybody's time with rehash or leave a string of edits that need clean up. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

MrBill3, We should not display a Commons category unless there's one specific to Jay Van Hook Potato Cellar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer, what if there is an image of the subject and that is the category it is in? What if there are several images of the subject in the category? Why isn't a category of say Lava Rock Structures in South Central Idaho appropriate for an article about a building that is historically notable as a member of that Thematic Resource/category? A category for the historic district a property is a part of would certainly seem extremely appropriate. We are talking about a small link in a stub article that leads to contextually related content where prose and context are lacking. The category most likely to contain photographs of the subject seems to improve the article's usefulness and completeness. Thanks for your contributions and collaboration. My goal is to add sources and some structure to short NRHP stubs so they can be further improved. One thing I don't want to do is make a mess, thus I pursue this discussion. My thinking is you have fairly extensive experience editing in this area so your input is valued. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

MrBill3, If there are one or more images of the subject over at Commons, without a standalone category, then create one specific to the subject! Template:Commons category is used to link Wikipedia subjects to their respective Commons categories, not related categories. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding linking to sister projects Manual of Style points to WP:SIS which in the section "When to link" states, "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers..." Encourages when likely useful. While not policy those are pretty widely accepted guidelines. I have presented reasoning to support these links as likely useful (context, finding aid) to readers (thus NOT a collection of links). The templates for providing these links include one that supports up to six categories. This would indicate a widespread editing practice of including links to related categories. The instructions for the Commons category-inline template include an example of how to make a list of multiple categories. While templates and their documentation are not policy these are widely used templates. Featured articles include links to commons galleries that are related to the subject of the article. What policy supports your statement about what the Commons category template is and is not used for? Not to be rude but in response to rationale that is considerate of policy the two responses I have received amount to, "I don't like it" and "That's not what we do" with no reference to what improves the encyclopedia or applicable P&G. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)