Difference between revisions of "Document talk:On the Protocols"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "==Category Use== I noted that you put this document into categories {{cat|Zionism}} and {{cat|World War II}}. I've been fairly steadily (if slowly) ''un''building the category...") |
m (→Category Use: reply) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Category Use== | ==Category Use== | ||
I noted that you put this document into categories {{cat|Zionism}} and {{cat|World War II}}. I've been fairly steadily (if slowly) ''un''building the category structure, as it is replaced with {{SMW}} data, the logic being that categories are a pretty unclear relationship. I don't propose to get rid of them entirely (and in fact, they can be easily re-created from SMW data it so desired (we just tweak a template or two - this is some of the logic behind removing the hardcoded category statements) since people are used to them and they fulfill a useful enough role e.g. categorise templates etc. How about replaceing the categories with extra subjects? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (IST) | I noted that you put this document into categories {{cat|Zionism}} and {{cat|World War II}}. I've been fairly steadily (if slowly) ''un''building the category structure, as it is replaced with {{SMW}} data, the logic being that categories are a pretty unclear relationship. I don't propose to get rid of them entirely (and in fact, they can be easily re-created from SMW data it so desired (we just tweak a template or two - this is some of the logic behind removing the hardcoded category statements) since people are used to them and they fulfill a useful enough role e.g. categorise templates etc. How about replaceing the categories with extra subjects? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (IST) | ||
| + | :Yes. I'm OK with that but with this reservation: The category Tree page is still high in the most-visited tables and the stats say that significant numbers get to both category pages and those linked from them by that route. The problem right now is that we don't have a similarly accessible route from a tree (or other presentation) of properties. [[Special:Properties]] is too unwieldy for the purpose, especially since that 2-5 entries per property issue is still present. It's bee nagging away at the back of my mind for a while now - hence recent addition of categories to a few pages - Needs pondering --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 16:55, 13 August 2014 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 15:55, 13 August 2014
Category Use
I noted that you put this document into categories Category:Zionism and Category:World War II. I've been fairly steadily (if slowly) unbuilding the category structure, as it is replaced with SMW data, the logic being that categories are a pretty unclear relationship. I don't propose to get rid of them entirely (and in fact, they can be easily re-created from SMW data it so desired (we just tweak a template or two - this is some of the logic behind removing the hardcoded category statements) since people are used to them and they fulfill a useful enough role e.g. categorise templates etc. How about replaceing the categories with extra subjects? Robin (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (IST)
- Yes. I'm OK with that but with this reservation: The category Tree page is still high in the most-visited tables and the stats say that significant numbers get to both category pages and those linked from them by that route. The problem right now is that we don't have a similarly accessible route from a tree (or other presentation) of properties. Special:Properties is too unwieldy for the purpose, especially since that 2-5 entries per property issue is still present. It's bee nagging away at the back of my mind for a while now - hence recent addition of categories to a few pages - Needs pondering --Peter P (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2014 (IST)
