Template talk:WikipediaTOC

Time for some discussion, neh? +sj +

May be. Now (20:29, 16 May 2004, by Lexor) looks better. Note: "Applied Arts and Sciences" looks not practical. I propose to spread this topic (some to Technology , some to Humans, some to Culture) For examle move Politics ? Public affairs to Social sciences. Also we do not need "Health science" and "Medicine" together. Kenny sh

Whay do "& nbsp;& ndash;" is used? Kenny sh

Bugs:

This have bugy view:

===On [[Nature]] and the [[Natural Sciences]]===

Use this:

On Nature and the Natural sciences

Or

On Nature and the Natural sciences

Layout sample: MediaWiki talk:Wikipediatoc/layout

What's wrong with using the section headers? It looks fine to me in Mozilla/Galeon on Linux/Windows. If you have problem using the section headers (e.g. ===Mathematics===), please post a screenshot here and we can fix it, rather than trying to work around it. It simply looks inconsistent with the rest of the Main Page to use <big>. (Also whoever posted the Bugs section, please sign the comment, I'm not sure who I'm replying to). --Lexor|Talk 09:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

==bug [[Bug]] bug [[Bug]]==

===bug [[Bug]] [[Bug]] bug ===

Looks on Main_Page only:
==bug Bug bug Bug== ===bug Bug Bug bug ===

Header doesn't work with link in toc of Main_Page.

Kenny sh

Links

Headings shouldn't contain links anyway, see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings. Could you also please add comments chronologically? You deleted User:Sj's initial remark and replaced it with the layout information. If you have a samples, consider using subpages, like MediaWiki talk:Wikipediatoc/layout. The Talk page is for discussion, not templates. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 15:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. TOC headings are some different from regular headings. I think it could contain links. IMHO, it is better, when TOC contains more link, not only links to sciences. Kenny sh

Should the links be cased as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)? Or do we still consider the Main Page to be outside its scope of application (as with the level of headings on the main page)? Dysprosia 06:27, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for more links in the Main Page. Kenny sh 15:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

What happened to the Architecture category, suddenly its gone missing. Whoever is doing the reshuffling will you please take care of it? KRS 17:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Kenny sh

Icons!

Please have a look to a draft Template:Wikipediatoc with icons. I've made SVG images, rendered PNG, and put in to toc page. Please write your comments about the draft.

How to rearrange categories?

Before you do rearrange categories, think ten times!

Study a topic you going to categorize. Most topics have two or more faces: for example personal car is machine, from another side it personal appliance; dancing from one side art, from another it is entertainment, computer is subtopic of technology and could be subtopic of entertainment.
Think what is common, not what is diffence. Learn holistic approach.
Limit number of subtopics. Recomended 6-7. Learn more, why: Hrair limit.
Define for each category its main keywords, ideas, subects (human personal life,soul,society,technology,nature), that will identify it.
Use second level tables of content for more detailed categorization.
Learn Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Basic_topics

Rearrange categories?

You've got 'holidays' under 'Religion, Culture, Fine arts, and Philosophy' and 'tourism' under 'Hobbies and entertainment'. Suggest deleting 'Holidays'.

I'd also suggest splitting 'fine arts' from 'religion' and 'philosophy' and lumping together arts, crafts and entertainment, because television is a lot more like theatre than theatre is like philosophy. Religion and philosophy could then be merged into either 'society' or 'humans'.

There is difference between palying theatre (art) and watchich teatre (entertaiment). Kenny

For that matter, 'food' and 'cooking' would look more at home with sport and gardening.

giving you something like -

Nature and Natural sciences Logic - Mathematics - Astronomy – Biology – Geography – Chemistry – Earth science – Ecology – Physics - Medicine - Psychology

Technology and Engineering Agriculture – Architecture – Automobiles – Computer science – Internet – Software engineering – Transport

Humanities Anthropology – Archaeology – Religion - Philosophy - History - Linguistics - Mythology - the Soul

Society, Social sciences, and State Business – Communication – Economics – Government – Law – Media – Politics – Public affairs – Sociology - Education - Family

Arts, Crafts and Entertainment Classics – Dance – Film – Literature – Music – Opera – Painting – Poetry – Sculpture – Theater – Visual arts and design - Television - Radio - Fashion

Hobbies and Recreation Games – Gardening – Humor – Recreation – Sports – Tourism - Food

Harry R 16:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I support your ideas. Fredrik 00:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest Entertainment, Hobbies and Recreation leave toghter. Also, think, what is common, not what is different. We don't want 100 caterories on the main toc. No more than 10, 6-7 is preferable. Please leave personal life category. More, let's think, may be merge 'Arts, Crafts and Entertainment' and 'Hobbies and Recreation' to Culture? Kenny 13:48, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Second level tables of contents.

Instead of categories rearrangment, I suggest to make for each category it's own ToC. I've already created some. Look links index and more at Template:Wikipediatoc. Kenny 08:35, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

Is there any way to get "second-level categories linked to from the main page? For example, linking Philosophy to the main page, though keeping it under the heading of Culture. The Philosophy categories are growing and I think people should be able to be exposed to it directly.

IMHO, Cultures sectoin need some cleanup. Kenny 10:45, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Abstraction

Why "Mathematics, Computer science, and Philosophy" are together? Kenny 11:14, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

they all involve abstract reasoning, they are not natural science, social science, or technology. dml 22:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great! Abstraction is much more better! Kenny 10:31, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Each of these abstractions refers to completely different levels of reality, philosophy deals with life as a whole, mathematics with numbers and computer science with computers, why the hell are they lumped under abstraction? Although George Bush and Jesus Christ are both people they each come from entirely different realities, don't we categorise them repsective of say history before we categorise them as people? I think we should restore these abstractions to what they are about (philosophy/culture, mathematics/abstraction (the existence of number is truly abstract) and computer science/technology) rather than group them under the lowest common denominator, ie not concrete life. Chwe 21:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, they are different, just as Biology and Physics. But that is the purpose (and problem) of grouping subjects. So we should keep abstractions Jørgen Friis Bak 16:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, my reaction to seeing the "Abstraction" category (and especially the "Statistics" entry under it) was: "What??" (And I have a degree in the subject!) Now that I've read this discussion, I understand, but obviously we can't rely on people doing that to figure out why it's called "Abstraction". Perhaps "Abstract reasoning" or "Deductive sciences" or something similarly descriptive would be better. - dcljr 10:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really hope we adopt a design with icons or bullets soon. When is this expected to happen? --Exigentsky 00:28, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

The vote on icons at Template talk:Wikipediatoc with icons#Voting.3F showed a very large preference for no icons. In keeping with this, I reverted to the non-icons version. Being bold does not mean ignoring other people's opinions. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:44, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The vote is MEANINGLESS

The vote just shows what a very limited number of people deeply involved in the project think, not the vast majority of users. It's as if you were to poll the Bush administration on manners of Iraq, or journalists on social issues, this does not usually reflect the opinion of the general public.

Most people prefer icons and Wikipedia should reflect that. --Exigentsky 07:36, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your unilateral actions only reflect what you think, which is a lot more limiting than a poll of involved users. If "most people" prefer icons, then they're welcome to come and tell us that. So far, they haven't, and the majority of people commenting on the issue don't like them.

As a point of style, typing in all caps is considered yelling, and therefore rude. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest not using it as a first resort. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wiki for PDA

I refer to Wiki often using my PDA. So i 'd like to see Wiki with as little images and or bullits as possible. Also i would like to see a menu relocation. I'd prefer it at the top of the page. Much like the BBC news text version. Jan

Would you like Main Page (text only) ? Kenny 10:51, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Software is not subordinate to engineering

In the U.S., there are about 10 times as many "software engineers" as "computer engineers" which means that software is not subordinate to computer engineers. Also, there are nearly as many "software engineers" as all "traditional engineeers" (about 2/3 as many), so software engineering is not suboridinate to traditional engineering either. These numbers come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Other countries will probably find similar ratios.

Computer engineering has long been part of traditional engineering, so putting "computers" in the title is redundant with "engineering". But, software has very different history, ideals, and practices than engineering, so it deserves its own heading.

Big letters

I don't like the big letters. Bensaccount 20:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category tree

I think the link from Category tree should lead to Category:Fundimental not Category:Main Page, what is the reasoning behind this? surely it would be better to start at the top of the tree rather than two levels down. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:29, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

I agree we should use Category:Fundamental, this obsoletes the main page category but is a better organisation. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 19:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree also. The main page caterogy is terrible. I'm glad to see it replaced, although the category system still needs to be polished a bit. Krik 09:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll change it then --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:41, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Just to be fair

If technology has engineering, vehicles, and transport; then I don't see why it cannot have software engineering, computer science, and software.

Question 1: Some of these entries are professions (engineering) and some are technologies (vehicles). Should it be one or the other or both? Do we care?

Question 2: How much of a sampling of a profession should be represented? For example, bridges and buildings are probably as important as vehicles. Which technologies should be highlighted for each profession?

Architecture

I'd like to move Architecture into a different category. On the actual main page it is listed under technology, but when i go to category:main page it's listed under arts. I thought the latter was transcluded in the former? Anyway, I think architecture's combination of arts and science would be better communicated by puting it with the other applied or practical arts such as politics, sociology and history, under society. I've been raising this issue a lot without getting much of a reply, perhaps I've posted it in the wrong places. Does anyone have an opinion on this or should I just move it? Do I need an admin or can I do it myself? Thanks Chwe 21:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

user:solipsist has pointed out that the Library of Congress Classification for Architecture is at NA under Fine Arts

I can support this. I'm not too troubled by the current position on the Main Page, but Architecture is often listed under Arts and many architects concentrate on the 3D visual aspects and detailing of a building, leaving many of the technical (will it stand up) aspects to a Structural engineer.

Hang on, it looks like it has moved already. -- Solipsist 23:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Architecture, Poetry, Drama

These are major fields here which mght not even intuitively or easily fall into 'arts' or 'literature' for some people. I think Wikipedia should showcase the breadth of fields being covered, so people are intrigued to explore it. Isn't that the purpose of subcategories under Culture? The page with these items was not too overloaded so as to require any extra scrolling, it was not, in my opinion, unappealing visually, and it was alphabetically arranged so all topics can easily be found. It is not like asking to add something like French poetry or something obscure here. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 16:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiAtlas?

I love WikiPedia, I love the random page function.

but ... Is anyone else annoyed at how often small town entries come up? It seems pointless to have "Nuclear_winter" and "Dacula,_Georgia" [with it's pop. of 3,848] in the same place.

A WikiAtlas would be a great project, but perhaps this is not the time.

Is there a way to seperate all these geographic entries from the rest?

I would say that inclusion of Wallaceton,_Pennsylvania is certainly non-encyclopedic ... unless you can open the WorldBook set and find Brights_Grove,_Ontario in there.

Thanks for listening to me rant, Dave

The order of Browse topics

Is there some basis for the order in which the Browse topics are displayed in the Main Page? If the order has to be lexicographic, then should Mathematics not come after Life? I presume that the current order is because Life is Personal Life, but the anchor text shows only Life. -- Sundar 14:18, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

It was and should be Lexicographic. Life should be moved or re-renamed Personal life. dml 18:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have been trying to convert the reference section over to a sidebar, in the style of Wikipedia:Browse, but the fonts get so much smaller when I look at them in Wikipedia:Browse_by_overview. Does anyone have a clue as to how best to get around this? -- Fplay 00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]