Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Browse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Old talk

This should replace "Browse Wikipedia by topic" on the main page. This makes it much easier to browse Wikipedia. Den fjättrade ankan 23:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reverted this to the last version by DavidLevinson who has been working on a new template at Template:Categories which improves on the existing one and removes a lot of redundancies and reintroduces the simplicity of the pre-Template TOC as well as incorporating/preserving many of the changes by Kenny sh. My thoughts are at: Template talk:Categories. --Lexor|Talk 05:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you know, that a lot of other peoples worked on previous version (12:11, 2004 Jul 21 Krik)? I don't agee with your Template:Categories version. I thik is missleading to put together Ecology and Mathematics, Medicine and Transport in same categories. Also, there is a lot of features of our ToC. If you like, we can discuss. Kenny 10:04, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
Discussion is fine. Yes, I know others have worked on it, but they have mainly tweaked it, but the basic design is still the one you started, when you branched from the original (non-category) one at Template:Wikipediatoc, and I maintain that both are overly cluttered and have too much repetition (this is OK in the category system itself, but for a top-level page, simplicity and clarity should be the guide). My suggestions:
  1. I agree that mathematics shouldn't be in the same topic as transport, it could well be under mathematics and natural sciences, as in the original TOC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Wikipediatoc&oldid=2530290
  2. I think we could simply slim down the headings to one or two words, max. Technology, Engineering, Computers, and Mathematics is overkill for the description lines, because they are repeated underneath.
  3. I also think that mathematics and natural sciences should be grouped together, mathematics is not really a "technology" subject and is more naturally grouped with the natural sciences.
  4. It's not necessary to have computer science, software engineering, computer software and computers as top-level categories in the same page.
  5. I dispute putting philosophy apart from the humanities, in a separate "fundamental" category, which is a strange mixture: wikipedia, documents, human (also a repetition, since it is included below).
--Lexor|Talk 10:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Answers are accordinly numbers.
  1. (note, I mean pairs: Ecology+Mathematics, Medicine+Transport) Mathematics is either abstract science, or precise science (because of numbers), it is very related to technology and engineering, but it not related directly to Nature.
  2. Sure.
  3. Not agree. Mathematics relates to Nature in same way as it relates to Psyhology. Yes, we can count cells, fingers. See #1.
  4. You are right. Computers could be enough.
  5. Philosophy and Mathematics are most fundamental and abstract scienses. May be another topics should be in another place. I partially agee with you that Philosophy is near to Humanities. Ethics, a branch of philosophy, is sure part of Humanities. But whole Philosophy is science about all in the world. Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, for example related to the Nature.
Humans could be fundumental for humans :).
Thank you for comments. Kenny 12:06, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Mathematics and logic are like language, tools for communication, and hence technologies (by my reasoning). Similarly, mathematics statistics, and logic are not natural sciences, (though of course they are tools for both natural science, social science, and for technology) I won't fall on my sword about it, there is arbitrariness in any category system. Language falls under culture, which isn't unreasonable either, but it would be strange for math and logic to be there.

Perhaps math logic statistics should get their own row (below technology).

The purpose of this isn't simply to arbitrarily divide the world (There are two kinds of people, those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't), it is to provide a simple clear navigation system for users (both new and old) to find articles in Wikipedia.

However the current schema privileges mathematics over everything else, it gets a header and a top-level category

Geography is also a physical and social science here, and that might ought to be cleaned up.

Humanity needs a better title. Also it is in Fundamental, and some/all of the other headers aren't. All of the headers should be in Fundamental if some are (for consistency, especially if this shows up on the main page). In that case, the whole Fundamental row would be unnecessary, as it would be implicit in the headers.

dml 13:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made some more edits (be bold in editing), I think this eliminates the mathematics/philosophy not fitting elsewhere problem, but we still need a better title than mathematical and computer science, it is more like Abstract analysis ... ideas. Also the Humanity line still doesn't work. dml 23:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the consensus for the order of categories on this page

I attempted to follow the names in Wikipediatoc, namely Abstractions replaces M&CS,Phil.

However, the Wikipediatoc places the larger categories thus

  1. Nature
  2. Human
  3. Culture
  4. Society
  5. Technology
  6. Abstraction is at the end, which is a nice progression from concrete to abstract
  7. (Fundamental is not mentioned on Main Page)
  8. Other

What is the consensus for the order on this page?

I think it is a very useful order Jørgen Friis Bak 20:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I took this to mean yes per the order in the Wikipediatoc, so I implemented. Anyone who disagrees, please switch it as you so please. Ancheta Wis 02:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks good. No need more than 6 lines. Kenny 16:44, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Wikipediatoc or Template:Categories

Wikipedia:Browse by category contains almost an exact copy of Template:Wikipediatoc. I think it would make more sense for it to be an exact copy, using template transclusion. I would like to merge them, reducing this page to: 

  {{Wikipediatoc}}
  [link to edit the above template]
  {{Wikipediacats-flat}}
  [link to edit the above template]
  [[inter-language links]]
  [[category links]]

Then all editing of the real content would take place in the templates. Any objections or alternative suggestions? —AlanBarrett 12:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ancheta Wis 12:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Note that instead of Articles, "Browse by category" goes to the Category pages. I am curious how you will solve that.

After experimenting, I see that a Template of the Browse by Category will be needed, otherwise, it simply goes to the articles Wikipediatoc, and not to the categories.

Ah, I see what you mean. Although they look visually almost identical, the link s are different. For example, Template:Wikipediatoc links to Astronomy, while Wikipedia:Browse by category links to Category:Astronomy. I have also discovered Template:Categories, which links to categories, not to articles. So, we could:

  1. Do nothing;
  2. Change Template:Wikipediatoc to link to categories instead of articles, and change Wikipedia:Browse by category to transclude the template;
  3. Update Template:Categories and change Wikipedia:Browse by category to transclude the template.

I like option 3, because it involves the least duplication of effort. —AlanBarrett 14:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So Option 3 looks good. I concur. Ancheta Wis 16:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Your proposal is to update Template:Categories and change Wikipedia:Browse by category to something like 

  {{Categories}}
  [link to edit the above template]
  {{Wikipediacats-flat}}
  [link to edit the above template]
  [[inter-language links]]
  [[category links]]
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by option 3. —AlanBarrett 17:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about a Quick Index link here on the side too? It's not a category per se, but still fits in I think (or is necessary for a "one-stop shop" of having accessing to the major ways of finding info... [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 19:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean like at the top right of Template:Wkipediatoc? I think that those links would be better in Template:Wikipediacats-flat. —AlanBarrett 20:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are you thinking of right-justifying the 2 links, I hope? Ancheta Wis 20:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'll right-justify the links to edit the templates. —AlanBarrett 20:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done the merge

I have finished the merge discussed above. I included the links to Wikipedia:Quick index and Wikipedia:Browse by overview, although I don't like them. I would prefer to see those links incorporated into Template:Wikipediacats-flat. —AlanBarrett 21:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, if 'Quick index' and 'Browse by overview' go into 'Wikipediacats-flat' then doesn't that mean that 'Quick index' and 'Browse by category' go into the analogous place at the bottom of 'Browse by overview'? Just for consistency of User Interface. Ancheta Wis 23:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, they should. —AlanBarrett 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fundamental categories

It appears that Eloquence means for the 7 Fundamental categories at the top of 'Browse by category ' to go into the Browse bar in the Main Page. Is anyone amenable to these 7 items? 'Knowledge, Nature, etc. , Wikipedia' - Or perhaps he means for the items to go thru a consensus. Ancheta Wis 03:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that both the main page and the "Browse by category" page should choose the same set of seven fundamental categories (not different sets as we have now), and that each of those seven categories should have a good introduction (unlike what we have now). I suspect that a major reason for the Main Page's choice of a different set of categories is the poor quality of the introductions to some of the seven categories on this page (Documents, Human, Knowledge, Nature, Philosophy, Reference, Wikipedia). —AlanBarrett 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, I think the same set of categories listed in the browse bar on the main page should appear in this list. --Lexor|Talk 10:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since the Category:Fundamental is at the top of 'Browse by category', it is starting to get some traffic as well as some complaints. I tried some copyedits on that category page and welcome your critiques on the Category talk:Fundamental page. Ancheta Wis 10:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

abstraction?

I personally think the category "abstraction" is awful. Can't we find something better for these subjects? Computer science, math, and philosohpy don't all belong together! Revolver 09:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kenny suggested this category. The reason that I remember is that these categories are distanced from Category:Nature; they are all a form of abstraction rather than a description of processes that occur in Nature. Agreed, there is an implicit POV in this, one that tends to be reflective or contemplative, rather than action-oriented, etc. Ancheta Wis 12:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I checked Category:Culture- it also includes Category:Philosophy as a sub-category.
It's fine for there to be categories with multiple parents, and even loops in the category graph. We are not trying to write down the One True Way of categorising topics. —AlanBarrett 13:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New category browse page.

I have been working on an improved version of this page, which can be found at User:Norm/Browse. This version also includes a sidebar of links to various category schemes (rather than being at the bottom) and selected article lists. I've been working on it for a while now and need some feedback on it. Norman Rogers 16:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support. Ancheta Wis 03:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about Economy?

The subject title pretty much says it all! How come no one thought about the economy? It's such an important part of a country. I personally think some one should write about this! 

 user:Proud Canadian
There is a category called Category:National economies (subcategory of Category:Economics), contains articles about each country's economy. Norman Rogers 11:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Move to Wikipedia:Browse?

With the new design, this page is no longer just for browsing by category, but a more general browsing starting point. How about moving it to Wikipedia:Browse? Tom- 02:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I think its a good idea, especially because the Main Page link says "Browse:", it would make a lot more sense for this page to be at that location. Norman Rogers 11:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about a new main category: Products ?

A new main category: products would automatically lead to a couple of new sub-categories on specific products types such as: cars, electronics, utilities, tools, air planes, clothing/fashion, furniture, software, etc. but also service categories.

This new category would also extend the listings or documentations of manufacturer or companies providing products or having provided products in their past.

In the more specific articles, not only product features, but also the history of products, the features to differentiate them and different types or alternatives could be described and documented. In the same context, publicly available market number could be included as well. Furthermore very specific product types/versions could be documented/described e.g. by the owner of these products.

These directory would give a broad audience (from consumers to market research) a very valuable survey and resources for further investigations. No other directory would be able to gather a similar high deverity and density of information related to all sorts of products.

Products are an essential part of our culture. It is worth to be documented in an encyclopedia. This new category would be a step beyond a primarily academic encyclopedia.

I hope this suggestion will be realized soon ....

--Ike 05:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very pleased

I haven't looked at this page for months on end, it was a disaster. It has become far far better and looks nice too. Congratulations!

Critics 2005-1-11

  • Too long and overloaded. It would much better and nicer if the brousing page will fit one page.
  • Some related categories are located too far: History, Society, Personal life, Culture all have common property: all belong to Humans.
  • Category Science duplicates other topics just by adding -logy (NPOV violation) to other topics: Anthropology is human race history, Sociology duplicates Society.
  • Duplications: Philosophy is under Math and Science, Politics and Social sciences under Science and Society and may be more.
  • Lack of Nature category. IMHO it is much more NPOV than Sciences and have to include: Astronomy ? Biology ? Chemistry ? Earth sciences ? Ecology ? Natural hazards ? Physics ? Space

Conan 10:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has helped in creating this page, here are some of my views.
  • The purpose of this page is to be a general portal for browsing Wikipedia. The page is long because of the large amount of categories it links to, but it isn't too long, I've reduced its size a bit and it can now fit on one page on higher resolutions.
  • There is no one way to sort articles in a way that is completley neutral that everyone agrees with. The categories used here are the ones used on the Main Page.
  • The duplications are there becasue topics can belong to more than one category. Also, since this is a popular page, category creep can occur, often resulting in duplications and increase the page size. These need to be watched.
  • The Nature category was a category here before, but it was largely decided to merge it under the natural sciences category, which is part of science. There is a Nature category which is what you might want, but it is not part of this page. Instead it is part of the Fundamental category, which is another category scheme.
  • Most of the categories are human based because an encycopedia a resource based on human knowledge, so it is written from a human point of view.
  • While some problems can be addressed, I think there will always be problems with the category system as I have been monitoring it for several months and have noticed that categories shift about alot every few months as people try to re-arrange it to various POVs. That's why the alternative category schemes were invented and this is linked both on this page and on the Main page. Norman Rogers\talk 16:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need a consensus

The Browse page should not really be pruned until we have a consensus. Ancheta Wis 10:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is, it was already decided months ago that Science should be a main category, and Nature would be a subcategory of it. Category:Nature is a already a subcategory of Category:Science. Science includes a lot more than just the natural sciences, so elimnating science for nature is inappropriate. These categories reflect the links on the main page which are now protected. This page is an expansion of the Main Page categories which need to be the same layout as to not to confuse. This page is also supposed to be stable, as the gateway to the topics in the encyclopedia. This page in its current state has changed little from when it was implemented in Mid-November. Before then there was constant changes and the categories switched around every few weeks or even days. Now that is 2005 I do not want to see many changes happening as a stable category structure is important to a maturing encyclopedia. I want to focus on developing the encyclopedia, not constantly re-arrange the layout. I have reverted the changes and made it clearer that Nature is part of the existing category structure. Norman Rogers\talk 15:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Science and Nature" is just confusing. Keeping it simple and user-friendly is important. I liked Norm's original simple approach which used a simple set of single categories. However, I do agree that we need to keep the categories the same so we can concentrate on building our collection of useful articles and placing each into appropriate categories. Icurite


huitres farci avec boudin noir

Please can anyone tell me anything about huitres farci avcec boudin noir?

Sounds like a very weird request (oysters stuffed with blood sausage). Never heard about it. David.Monniaux 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Browse/Archive_1&oldid=42503833"