Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Flagship Modules"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edit of Nruuds, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Shouldn't this page be replaced with an automatic Category page? I'm working on that now. | ||
| + | :In Wikipedia, categories and list pages are used next to eachother. I'm not sure what their reasoning is, but it seems to me that a Category page is more of an index, while a "list of" page is more of a table of contents. A "list of" page does not have to be sorted on alphabet, and can have additional comments. Not just as introductionary message, but also like "also known as Fusion Thruster" within parenthesis. - [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 22:44, 6 Oct 2004 (CEST) | ||
| + | ::It's a lot more work to maintain lists. Many of the list pages are already out of date and anyone who adds something that ''should'' go on them won't necessarily know to, or want to bother. I think that the use of list pages on Wikipedia is because Categories are a relatively new feature and they keep the lists around for backwards compatibility and because no one has bothered to get rid of them yet. | ||
| + | :::Well, lists have their own advantages, as I mentioned above. As for lists getting out of date, it only takes one person to notice and fix it. Usually though, the link on the list page exists before the page does. Which is another thing you can't do with Categories, while it is useful, as it stimulates people to contribute. Besides, at some point there will be no pages left to add within a list. :) - [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 05:25, 7 Oct 2004 (CEST) | ||
| − | + | == Wikipedia's approach == | |
| + | |||
| + | This is what Wikipedia has to say about this issue: [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes]] | ||
| + | Note that they view categories as an aggregation of '''Articles''', not "things of the same type". | ||
| + | -- [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 23:24, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Addition: on [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization]]: "The appeal of categories is that unlike lists, they update themselves automatically, and that one can use them to quickly find related articles. However, categories are not a substitute for lists, and you will find that many articles belong to both lists and categories." -- [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 23:31, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == The move == | ||
| + | |||
| + | In trying to keep with the developing style guide, I thought it'd be nice to take care of one of the first things you come across as you explore the Ultronomicon. Any disagreement? --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 09:32, 10 Nov 2005 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 06:33, 1 March 2006
Shouldn't this page be replaced with an automatic Category page? I'm working on that now.
- In Wikipedia, categories and list pages are used next to eachother. I'm not sure what their reasoning is, but it seems to me that a Category page is more of an index, while a "list of" page is more of a table of contents. A "list of" page does not have to be sorted on alphabet, and can have additional comments. Not just as introductionary message, but also like "also known as Fusion Thruster" within parenthesis. - SvdB 22:44, 6 Oct 2004 (CEST)
- It's a lot more work to maintain lists. Many of the list pages are already out of date and anyone who adds something that should go on them won't necessarily know to, or want to bother. I think that the use of list pages on Wikipedia is because Categories are a relatively new feature and they keep the lists around for backwards compatibility and because no one has bothered to get rid of them yet.
- Well, lists have their own advantages, as I mentioned above. As for lists getting out of date, it only takes one person to notice and fix it. Usually though, the link on the list page exists before the page does. Which is another thing you can't do with Categories, while it is useful, as it stimulates people to contribute. Besides, at some point there will be no pages left to add within a list. :) - SvdB 05:25, 7 Oct 2004 (CEST)
- It's a lot more work to maintain lists. Many of the list pages are already out of date and anyone who adds something that should go on them won't necessarily know to, or want to bother. I think that the use of list pages on Wikipedia is because Categories are a relatively new feature and they keep the lists around for backwards compatibility and because no one has bothered to get rid of them yet.
Wikipedia's approach
This is what Wikipedia has to say about this issue: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Note that they view categories as an aggregation of Articles, not "things of the same type". -- SvdB 23:24, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)
Addition: on wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization: "The appeal of categories is that unlike lists, they update themselves automatically, and that one can use them to quickly find related articles. However, categories are not a substitute for lists, and you will find that many articles belong to both lists and categories." -- SvdB 23:31, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)
The move
In trying to keep with the developing style guide, I thought it'd be nice to take care of one of the first things you come across as you explore the Ultronomicon. Any disagreement? --Fyzixfighter 09:32, 10 Nov 2005 (CET)