Wikipedia talk:Hub page

Zondor: I am wary of any attempt to merge with my Root page suggestion, which I see came came first. Yet another page just demonstrates that there is a need for something like this. I suggest that Rootpage has been more thoroughly defined and refined.

Note the important difference that Rootpage uses a 'star' configuration only and does not attempt to create hierarchy, which I have been persuaded leads to confusion. Others have tried to create hierarchical approaches and failed.

Note also that Root page does not use navigational sidebars, which I find rather confused and cluttering. It aims to link only a limited number of pages into a tight-knit group using the Root page article as a common introduction, largely as an aid to editors to avoid the duplication which is currently rife.

The Hub page seems to be more like a category listing, covering a wide range of articles that have some connection, a function also performed by categories.

I suggest there is room for the two methods - or for further discussion. 16:22, 12 February 2006 86.135.218.117

Not policy?

While I was trying to introduce Root page, which was promptly labelled as not policy, this page seems to sneeked in without any such challenge!! Am I missing something? Surely this page needs to go through the same process of proposal as policy and the seeking of consensus here? --Lindosland 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of sneaking in this idea. Not knowing any better, I just made a page called Wikipedia: Hub page and introduced the notice on a couple of pages a few weeks ago because it seemed like the best way to deal with the problem of large subjects (like electrical engineering and electricity). How is this different from your approach? No one has commented on my hub page notes until today.

I am of course willing to abide by the rules for new ideas if Im aware of them and am happy to discuss these ideas on talk:root page or talk:hub page with a view to implementing some sort of organisation on large subjects--Light current 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Light current. Don't worry, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of sneaking anything in, just a bit surprised that while I was immediately given a bit of a hard time for not making a proper policy proposal first (which I then did), made to work hard, and my page labelled 'not official policy', this page was left quietly alone! That's just how it is with Wikipedia of course, no big deal, and I'm probably like you (and an electronics designer), keen on writing and making things work and doing my best to abide by the 'rules'.

I'm actually a bit stuck with Root page now. As I understand it, I'm supposed to seek consensus on its talk page, but what exactly that means I'm not sure anyone knows. Some such things seem to go through on a quick vote with only a few people supporting them at the talk page. I think I should probably aim for that and then take down the 'not policy' notice. So far there's been a lot of comment from people who seem not to have taken in the concept properly, or what I've argued in return. No opposition as such, and a few keen supporters.

I started off much like you, saying that a root page could itself have a root page, ie establishing a hierarchical system. First I was told this was just disambiguation. I strongly reject this as showing no proper understanding. Then I was told it must be made policy and hence become Wikipedia:Root page, which I decided was correct. Then I met with comments from people saying such systems had been tried and led to problems of overcomplexity. I was convinced, and added a statement that a root page cannot itself have a root page. Many people thought that the idea was only about navigation for users, which I strongly argue it is not - I've done a lot of work trying to draw together pages that seem to have sprung up without knowledge of each other (which I think you understand). So I changed my definition and said that Root page is to be a star system, no hierarchy. I was directed to Summary style but decided that this is really something different again, as I've explained at Talk:root page.

To sum up I'd say:

Disambiguation page is for words with no dominant single meaning. It is often used wrongly to split up an existing page, fragmenting it and losing meaning.
Wikipedia:Summary style is about how you write an single article - starting with an introductory paragraph and then using headings.
Categories are for a thorough search, but get very large, and don't provide any base for the integrated editing approach.
Hub page is repeating earlier suggestions, with the weakness being that as soon as you allow 'sub-hubs' it gets a bit hard to know where 'base' is, or whether to make a page a 'relation' of a sub-hub or the main hub. There seems to be a lot of support for 'keeping things simple' on Wikipedia, and I've decided I tend to agree with that idea and go along with it.

Wikipedia:Root page avoids criticisms of overcomplication by adopting a simple star. It also avoids big panels or sidebars of associated topics that look too confusing. And it states clearly but inconspicuously right at the top of the page (using a template which someone else kindly created) 'this is a rootpage'. It sets out clear rules saying that the template shouldbe at the start, and all associated pages should be listed in 'see other'. It also says that pages regarded as 'family' should give the root page first in the 'see other' list, with a note that it is the rootpage. Finally I see someone made Root page a category too, which is very useful as you can look at category rootpage for key introductory articles.

I tried various other names that were suggested, including hub, but returned to root when I realised that not only does this see to trip off the tongue, but it really does describe the concept well, because the root page is the page from which the others spring. Hub describes a page at the centre, but not necessarily from which they spring. This point is important as I say that a root page should contain an introduction which can be assumed by associated pages, avoiding repetition. This seems to work better for a star perhaps than for a hierarchical system.

So let me know what you think. I've learnt a lot from trying to meet objections. If you agree with the simpler approach, I'd be very glad of your support at Root page. Root page has just got support from a 'founder editor' who has used it on the huge Mormon page collection. With your support we could probably take the notice down and go for it now. Otherwise, perhaps we should merge ideas and settle it that way. --Lindosland 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindosland, Having read the comments on this talk page and on talk:hub page, Im pretty sure that you and I have very similar views on this subject. What the page is called Im not too bothered, but the concept is essential for these very large subjects esp in engineering and science,(physics/ chemistry etc). If you now take a look at wikipedia:hub page you will see that I have adopted 90% of your proposals. I only differ on a few minor points. perhaps we could discuss these, come to an agreement, then surge forward to implement this long overdue and absolutely necessary concept!--Light current 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Strong oppose. The main article links already make it pretty clear that there is more information in other articles, so having an extra notice add no extra value. It is actually so obvious that by placing this message at the top of an article you imply the reader is a complete idiot. —Ruud 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you are actually opposing? I cant see anything to vote on formally.--Light current 19:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can ignore this objection Light current, as it shows no understanding and no willingness to read and take in what is proposed. Our proposals, both Hub page and Root page are, I think we agree, vital to coordinated editing, which is desparately needed, and not primarily for readers, though they assist by emphasising the more closely linked articles. --Lindosland 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well originally, I was thinking the idea would be useful for editors in organising material but would also be of great use to readers in navigating around a subject.

As I indicated my preffered system is one of including 'Main Page' links to sub pages at the head of each introductory para of the subject on the hub/root page. This gives compatability with those pages such as electricity that already use the summary style.

Also on each sub page, I would put a 'go back to hub page' link at the top of the page for easy navigation. What are oyour thoughts on this as opposed to putting all the links under 'see also' which would necessitate large changes to all the existing large pages now using pseudo summary style?--Light current 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Hub Page Historical - see Root page

I am labelling this page historical, as its effect recently has been to create two discussions and I think that concentrating the discussion at Talk:Root page will help us achieve the consensus that I have been seeking there for some time.

Light current: I'm pleased to find someone who understands why we need something like this, and pleased to see you have adopted so many of my ideas. However, since I started Root page in December 2005 and have engaged in a lot of discussion over it on its talk page I am not happy with you copying so much of my text over to this page. You are entitled to copy of course, but in doing so you take the concept away from the historical discussion associated with it, and dilute my attempt to get a consensus there. When I came to Hub page there was no discussion going, whereas Root page had a lot of discussion on its talk page.

This does not mean that I am insisting on the name of Root page. We can change it to Hub page or anything else if a different name is agreed to be better, but adopting, as you say, 90% of the ideas on Root page, just to call them something else does not seem right. --Lindosland 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not hear that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Im happy for all my postys to be copied to Root page. In fact I was just about to propose a merge of the two pages.--Light current 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike! --Lindosland 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know!--Light current 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]