Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Web sites"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (reply) |
m (more) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Yes. I agree with that. But the sub-categories MAY be used in the 'See Also' sections of a few other pages so need to leave in place until new SMW replacement proven --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 16:21, 21 December 2013 (GMT) | :Yes. I agree with that. But the sub-categories MAY be used in the 'See Also' sections of a few other pages so need to leave in place until new SMW replacement proven --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 16:21, 21 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: And of course the same applies to many (perhaps even most) sub-categories of the entire current content category tree. I envisage defining lots of properties that can be referenced within the text of articles (like 'lone-nut gunman', dispensing with the 'is' or 'has'). The containing page would be the subject and a page with an exposition of the concept 'lone-nut gunman' the object. It's entire content need not be about a particular 'lone-nut gunman' (ie LHO and Jack Ruby on the JFK Assassination page) but browsing DP concepts would be aided considerably by such facilities - Categories are just too clunky to be used like that effectively. How such use might be interfaced with SMW saved 'concept queries' needs exploring too. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 17:22, 21 December 2013 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 17:22, 21 December 2013
Applying the website template
Applying template:Website to all the pages in this category may be a good idea. The sub-categories may be able to be replaced by a more effective SMW-based structure. Robin (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2013 (GMT)
- Yes. I agree with that. But the sub-categories MAY be used in the 'See Also' sections of a few other pages so need to leave in place until new SMW replacement proven --Peter P (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2013 (GMT)
- And of course the same applies to many (perhaps even most) sub-categories of the entire current content category tree. I envisage defining lots of properties that can be referenced within the text of articles (like 'lone-nut gunman', dispensing with the 'is' or 'has'). The containing page would be the subject and a page with an exposition of the concept 'lone-nut gunman' the object. It's entire content need not be about a particular 'lone-nut gunman' (ie LHO and Jack Ruby on the JFK Assassination page) but browsing DP concepts would be aided considerably by such facilities - Categories are just too clunky to be used like that effectively. How such use might be interfaced with SMW saved 'concept queries' needs exploring too. --Peter P (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2013 (GMT)
