Wikipedia talk:Root page/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Backlinks

Should the backlink template not use the pipe | as in: {{backlink|where_you _came_from}} --Light current 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this above should say: {{backlink|root_page}} --Light current 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what you mean by this, though I just copied the format of the rootpage template. What would the pipe achieve?

Well this just achieves compatibility with the 'Main page' template, the 'merge' template etc and maybe makes it easier for people to use rather than having to remember a special format for this template.--Light current 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to put a line feed into the template in so we dont have to?--Light current 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. The {{rootpage}} template, which I didn't create, appears to have a : at the start which forces a new line. I'm not sure where you want a line feed. I did include a space in the backlink template at the end, which seems to work. --Lindosland 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have updated all the syntax (the template and the inclusions). This is the correct way. Anyone reverting me better finish the job (if you be bold, you should also be thorough). Root page needs to be updated too, but I think in general that tag is a bad idea. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

THans for showing us the correct way and doing all this work for us!--Light current 07:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The term backlink needs defining and its own page on Wikipedia:Backlink--Light current 07:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If backlinking is remove, we will end up with little more than summary style. I believe backlinking is ESSENTIAL to easy navigation. Thas why I proposed hub pages so novice people especially could get around the subject quickly and easily without having to wade thro' a mass of (possibly)confusing blue links. Go forward - go back. What could be simpler than that?--Light current 00:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the problem could be stated in Go forward - go back terms. When wiki browsing you can go in many directions and the only one that knows where do you came from is your web browser. Probably go up - go down are better terms. i.e. more clearer terms to describe semantic (?) movements that are almost always appliables and that could serve to implement the loose grouping mechanism that seems needed. ALoopingIcon 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. Go up/down Yes! OR go deeper or shallower--Light current 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. Deeper is a much clearer term than down...ALoopingIcon 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So you like Staus Quo then: Down, down, deeper and down :-))--Light current 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Adoption of Root page Proposal - Voting.

This is a straw poll and used only to gauge opinions and not for consensus decision making. For other surveys, see Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Support. I think a few minor tweaks may be necessary but the system is working well so far.--Light current 07:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. I agree, and think we have to decide whether to backlink and whether to allow multiple levels. I am currently inclined to take out backlinks at the top of articles, but I think the 'Branch page' section, with backlink template first, is very good. --Lindosland 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Object for many reasons. Virtually any page that contains a wikilink, is linked to, or is placed in a category can be seen as a "root page". It is doubly redundant with categories. Summary style is superior to "centralised style". Fredrik Johansson 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no need for a formalized concept. Of course a page should link to other pages in the same subject area. If the subject of the article is a more general one (e.g. 'Animation'), then it is natural that it will serve as a guide to more specific related areas and have links to them. The "This is a Root page" flag is noise and should not be present on the article page. -R. S. Shaw 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC) No it's not noise it designates the page for editors, so they see all the topics already covered! --Lindosland 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose unmaintainable, unnecessary, unwiki. Septentrionalis 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose It is a too rigid formalization on what can be done in a more polite way by adding some commented See Also links. The top of page backlink (look at the one in CGI) to a direction different wrt the one where you came from is quite distracting. Note that this template has been proposed for deletion. ALoopingIcon 08:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC). Deletion of things seeking consensus properly is downright wrong. --Lindosland 15:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, unnecessary. - mako 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, each article links to others, what's a "base camp for editing" and how many Sherpas must you bring with you? --Wtshymanski 15:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, unnecessary. Portals, categories, navigational templates, See also, and wikilinks already cover this. — Omegatron 17:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Omegatron. Indeed, well-designed portals should do a much better job than trying to put a branch structure in article space. Kusma (討論) 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am dispirited to see, not that people should oppose the idea, but that all those opposing it appear not to have read a word of what it's about. Please try harder! The objections above are trivial and already well challenged with reasons on this page. Objectors make no mention of the true aims of centralised editing: providing a 'base camp', formalised minimal linking backwards and forwards (20 per page replacing 400) using the 'multiplying effect', easy navigation for users, elimination of duplicated topics, etc!! If you don't understand it, don't oppose it just on the grounds 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Some of us can see that it is cracking up in certain ways that we think can be fixed. --Lindosland 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To all objectors

We would be pleased if all objectors to (and supporters of) Root page now joined the discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics on this subject. THe more input we have from as many concerned editors as possible, the more likely a workable solution satisfying everyone will emerge sooner rather than later. If you know anyone having an interest in this subject, please let them know of the discussion ASAP. THanks--Light current 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel?

Nothing irritates a reader more than seeing the root links and back links while reading an article. Wikification would help people in seeking out something related. See also sections would complement it. Categories show a natural way of navigating? Why re-invent the wheel? What problem is this solution trying to solve? I am sorry if I sound hassled because I already see angry posts on talkpages of articles. --Gurubrahma 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing irritates a reader more than seeing the root links and back links while reading an article.

This is a very sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence for this claim?As far as I know the only back links are at the top of the page and other links are distributed around the page like Main article links. So I dont see what you are actually complaining about.--Light current 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably Gurubrahma refers to a couple of comments i did in the talk pages of Talk:Ophthalmology and Talk:Computer-generated imagery about the appropriatness of the top link present in that two pages. Infact i think that is distracting (not disturbing) to see the top back link example if you came from a different article. E.g. if you jump into Ophthalmology from Medicine, Retinopathy, or any other non optics topic, it seem strange (at least for me) that the first things that you read is back to optics. Placing these links in the see also section could be more polite. ALoopingIcon 00:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid comment, and I only adopted the 'back-link' in response to other suggestions, having at first wanted to leave the top of the article clear. In fact Opthalmology need not backlink at all, I put the backlink in, as I did from Electronics to Electrical engineering, as it seemed obvious, but originally I intended no backlinks, just isolated roots with branches to aid organisation of topics. This is proving a difficult concept to negotiate as some folk seem to want it badly (in some form) while others dismiss it without realising how it can help to organise big topics that are currently in a mess. Thanks and sorry if I caused any bother. --Lindosland 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Root page is a fallacy. Computer-generated imagery could have been linked to from any of the 100-odd pages listed under "What links here" - none of the Wiki pages is uniquely dependant on any other page. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and need not have its limitations - "what links here" is far more powerful! --Wtshymanski 00:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no substantial limitations on the Root/hub page concept. It does require however, a consensus of editors to agree on what is a Root page. Is that so difficult?. It will be obvious what the root page should be in so many large subjects that its hardly worth discussing. Anyway, there is no reason why a sub page cant have more than one root page if neccessary. To say that the root page concept is introducing limitation when it is removing nothing and providing extra features is ludicrous.--Light current 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are just yet another person who has not bothered to read what Rootpage is about! It says clearly that it is mostly about coordinating the editing process. You will also find abundant comments by me above to the effect that there are an infinite way of creating supposed 'hierarchy' and that hierarchy is not a very useful concept on Wikipedia. The main point, as clearly stated, is to provide a base for editing a cluster of pages that seem to warrant coordinated editing for whatever reason. Originally that was all it was about, but I was persuaded that it should go further. If you don't think the Electronics topic needs sorting out, having looked through it (as with many other big topics) then I'm very surprised. There are duplicate articles with slightly different names all over Wikipedia, and by attaching article to a Root page it becomes a lot easier to sort things out and merge the duplicates. Whether we go beyond one level (originally only one level was planned) and whether we 'backlink' at the top of the page are still open questions on which feedback is welcomed and will be noted. Lightcurrent, who wanted two levels with hub and sub-hub pages has recently expressed doubts (see above) about allowing multiple levels, and I'm tending to revert to my original proposal. Do you see the point now? Could you agree to this in reduced form. Actually, [Computer generated imagery] is a good example of a page that I have worked on and which I found to be badly written as it made no reference to [3D Animation] or [Computer animation] or a dozen or more associated pages, and nor did they link to each adequately other until I took on the job of trying to coordinate the whole Animation topic. I started a discussion that helped explain resolve whether CGI was a film technique only, which some seemed to think it was, just because that was their field. This sort of thing happens over and over again, and is resolved by bringing together editors at a 'base camp' - the Root page. --Lindosland 00:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i got the point. Something that helps to organize similar articles could be useful. In that sense, (and not as a tool for building hierarchies) rootpages could be interesting. Probably the name rootpage is misleading: too hierarchy oriented. If i have well understood the underlying idea, it should be a tool for grouping similar articles under (one or more) more general articles with the well defined purpose of giving a broader view of the subject. Perhaps it could be interpreted a "more general" kind of see also. Just to better explain myself, consider the wiki graph, vertically order its articles according their generality/abstractness, (top general, bottom very detailed articles): Rootpages are up links. ALoopingIcon 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[Warning hysterical rant follows:] The root page proposal will be a radical change in the Wikipedia philosophy. It is (implicitly but definitely) saying that the articles should partitioned into "topics" (like "electronics") and each theme should have some topic-wide organization. That in turns implies that there is a buch of "owners" who oversee its organization of each topic. Well, that is very different from the current arrangement. It will be no more a wikipedia, it will be a collection of edited books. That might work but it is another project, and needs to be managed differently -- to begin with one must pick a chief editor who is competent in the subject AND is also a competent technical writer AND also a good manager -- not the person you find easily, certainly not your random wikipedia volunteer. It is already nearly impossible to ensure consistency and organization within a single article: imagine then trying to keep consistency of the "Electronics" cluster. Given the nature of its task force, Wikipedia's amorphous structure, where every article is a root, is not a liability but an asset. In fact, surfing Wikipedia is enjoyable precisely because each page reads like a complete article, not as a random page torn out from the middle of a textbook, and the reader can follow the links in any order. Sorry, I don't know how to express myself clearly, but it i am really scared. This is a terribly bad idea. Sorry... [End of hysterical rant] Jorge Stolfi 01:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree on the fact that any rigid hierarchical structure cannot be applyed over the wikipedia graph, but it seem probable that the number of related links for each article (see also stuff) will grow more and more. For this reason it would be useful to have up/deep directions of movements over the articles. E.g. i would like to have, in a single place, a simple set (not a single one) of links to articles that are in some vague sense more general than the article that i am currently reading. E.g. for the CGI article they could be Animation, Computer Graphics and Visual Effects. Nothing similar to a hierarchy. Just some loose directions for better navigation. (i still think RootPage is a evil name :) ) ALoopingIcon 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I cant see what User:Jorge Stolfi is so worried about. THe other links will still be on the page and he or others do not have to use the easy navigational facilites that the Root page/backlink system provides. Why complain about a free lunch- you dont have to eat it!--Light current 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I would also say that in my experience many topics are managed by a 'bunch of owners', but that it's part of the magic of Wikipedia that they often do a remarkably good job, guarding what is good (their investment) and hastily kicking out or correcting what is obviously misguided. We want to make their job easier, but this does not give them any more power or dilute the principles of Wikipedia in any way. --Lindosland 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Root/branch is a bad idea.

Based on what I've seen of the Root page concept on Semiconductor, I have strong reservations about it and I would support any call for deletion.

Other tools are already available

We already have several good tools to use to tie a group of articles together. The first is just good writing, and the use of explicit crossreferences. For example, the Diode article might begin, "In Electronics, a diode is a...". This achieves everything that a backlink template does, without distracting from the article in front of the reader.

Another tool is Wikipedia:Summary style. Since it doesn't create categories, this isn't exactly the same for editors. But for readers, the experience is the same. Whether the main article in Summary style must summarize the detail articles is just a matter of style. If there are really hundreds of detail articles (as in Electronics), the summary could naturally be reduced to a single sentence, or membership in a list.

A third is the Wikipedia:Navigational templates. A well-designed template could tie a group of articles together for its editors, even create a category for those articles; and it wouldn't distract readers.

A fourth tool is list articles. A central hub list could be created to allow editors to keep track of all the articles relevant to their area. If it is really just for editors, it could go in the User Talk namespace.

A fifth tool is Project pages. Use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics page as a hub for all the electronics articles.

A sixth tool is "What links here?". If you, as an editor, want an overview of the articles related to electronics, just click on "what links here" and you've got it.

A seventh tool is the Wikipedia:Portal page.

If I don't convince you, see Wikipedia:How to break up a page for further ideas on how a large page or topic can be broken up into cohesive sub-articles, without having to invent anything new.

Creates hierarchy even if you don't want it

The Semiconductor article was made a branch of Electronics, but it might easily be a branch of Materials science or Solid-state physics or Economic goods. Many other articles would have this problem. Even something concrete like Laser creates a problem: is it a branch of Optics or Electronics or Quantum mechanics? It's all of those, but the root/branch concept doesn't allow for that. For articles like this, categories (with articles able to be members of multiple categories) are much better.

And if there are multiple Semiconductor articles, one as a branch of Electronics and one as a branch of Materials science then they will diverge, or even disagree, and a reader will not know which article to read -- most likely s/he'll only find one of the several articles, and miss information we would rather s/he read.

If you must have root/branch, use it sparingly, and only where its obviously correct to organize hierarchicly; or design a system like categories that allows each article to fit in multiple groupings. To say that an article like Semiconductor is a sub-article of any single other article is wrong.

The templates are poorly designed and confusing

The backlink template, reading "Back to X", is confusing to the reader. What if s/he got to the article by clicking a link in article A, not X? The summary-style version, "For more background on this topic, see X" was much more clear to the reader, and would seem to have an identical meaning.

Why write if it's not for the reader?

One commentator said that the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is not to be read, but that tools for editors have similar importance. This is rediculous. Why would we write anything at all, except that we hope it will be read? (Certainly not just for the glory of our egos) And if we want something to be read, shouldn't we want to write for the maximum benefit of the reader? Anything that confuses the reader, detracts from what we as editors are trying to do.

Of course tools for editors are important, because editors are needed to write -- so that readers will have something to read.

But, if the root/branch concept is meant only for editors, put the templates on the discussion pages only, not on the article pages where readers have to see it. Or make a Wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics, and keep a list of relevant articles there.

Articles are the main organizing structure of Wikipedia

One of the most enjoyable things about reading Wikipedia is the interconnectedness of the articles. By following links, you can explore a dense mesh of related articles. The root/branch concept attempts to lead a reader to

The proper place for a larger document, that leads a reader along a particular path to understanding a broad field, is Wikibooks.

Good writing is the best solution for readers

Let me come back to this.

If the article is well-written and well-linked, it should be clear without any props where to go next for more information about a broad topic. So if in doubt, just write the articles clearly. Root/branch is not needed to improve the articles for readers.

If the root/branch concept is really just for editors, put it somewhere where only editors have to see it, like the discussion pages, a project page, or a list in a User Talk page.

The Photon 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Its getting hard to keep replying to such long lists of objections, especially as I, as originator of Root page, have already anticipated them and explained why they are not valid over and over agian on this page. (There is of course a well known, and discussed, problem with lack of easy-to-follow thread structure structure in Wikipedia Talk pages, which we are now coming up against.) To take a few of the above:

• 'Good writing is the best solution'. If only! My main motivation for Root page was to make better writing possible. When people write in isolation misleading articles often arise.

• 'If only for editors, put it on Talk only'. No, firstly because it's not just for editors, and is a useful and clear way of getting to articles in a topic group. Secondly, because Talk pages are cluttered and having the links on the main page works quickly. When I edit a group of pages I go back and forth between them, checking interlinking etc. To have to keep loading talk pages would be very tedious.

• 'Wikibooks' No way! I'm not trying to change Wikipedia, just make certain things a bit easier. Hopefully this will lead to less words not more, with centralised introductions and minimal repetition.

• 'A dense mismash of articles.' You can say that again. I agree that different approaches can be interesting, but do you want a collection of blogs, each containing misunderstandings? There's room for articles giving different viewpoints on some topics (policy recommends this rather than 'balance') but surely we want to be pointed to the alternative, and Root page will do this.

• 'Multiple articles - Semiconductor'. Yes semiconductor could be a branch of materials science, or physics, or electronics. This problem arises over and over again, but currently readers tend to see only one article and miss the other which has been created by someone who thought it was obviously electronics and didn't think to check elsewhere. One purpose of rootpage is to attach all such articles to one Root, perhaps even arbitrarily. Once firmly in place, other root pages should show links to it, so that it stands out as already written. So you go to materials science, see a link to Semiconductor which happens to be a branch of Electronics, and don't start another one. The point is that such 'long range' links need only be put on rootpages to be easily found. Otherwise they need to be on every page remotely connected to materials science. --Lindosland 12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposal cites "Animation" as an example of a possible root page, and includes "Computer animation" as one of the pages. Methinks that is a good counter-example: "Computer animation" belongs with equal rights to the topic "Computer Graphics".

Sorry if this is repetitive... the basic objection is: the "root page" proposal is a proposal for a tree-like structure; but knowledge is not tree-like (not even approximately). It is not a coincidence that the most successful paper encyclopedias were organized as a flat lists of articles in alphabetical order. Jorge Stolfi 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the above comment is valid, because there really is no choice. Encyclopedias would be very hard to use if you had to look everything up in the index first. Wikipedia solves this problem wonderfully and also has redirects and Wikilinks. We're not about to take any of those away! --Lindosland 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic concepts

I refer this admirable page to some possible root concepts in semantics:

• compounds,
• another is the study of relations between different linguistic expressions (
  • homonymy,
  • synonymy,
  • antonymy,
  • polysemy,
  • paronyms,
  • hypernymy,
  • hyponymy,
  • meronymy,
  • metonymy,
  • holonymy,
  • exocentric, and
  • endocentric).

Semantics includes the study of

• thematic roles,
• argument structure, and its linking to
• syntax.

Semantics deals with

• sense and reference,
• truth conditions, and
• discourse analysis.

Pragmatics

Pardon?--Light current 03:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussions and this article appear to be focussed on meronymy and holonymy. However there are other semantic relationships. --Ancheta Wis 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ancheta Wis, I had a feeling all along that I was trying to express difficuties of relationships that are hard to make understood, but must be studied in depth by someone. I'm amazed there are so many pages on this. I meet this sort of problem every day, and I think I must study semantics! For example people sometimes argue that I'm not a Scientist though I have a BSc, because I'm an Engineer, as if all such titles were mutually exclusive, when they are surely not. I find it frustrating that so many forms we fill in require one-word answers for hundreds of things like this, which to me are not not mutually exclusive and are sometimes contained in each other. I recently filled in a form that required me to state my occupation by ticking one box in a list that included 'civil engineer' (presumably the only form of 'technical' job the writer knew of) and omitted 'engineeer' even 'scientist'. The problem is, we need to teach kids semantics at school perhaps if we are to have any chance of applying it in real life. Can you offer us any help with the Root page idea? Will you support it? --Lindosland 15:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New approach - branchlist templates

Here's a new approach which combines navigational templates with the Root page concept, so that each has only 10 or so links on it. By combining the backlink and the page title on the first line I've created a very workable system. Try navigating around Electronics or Noise now - it's easy peasy! I deliberately used the name Branchlist in every template so that they could be recognised and swapped for parametric templates of the form branchlist|rootpage|hubpage by a software 'bot' later on, if we can get the special parametric template form working with auto-fillout. --Lindosland 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindosland , I like what you are attempting to do on the electronics pages. However, we must be careful to persuade other editors thet what we are doing is right. I would therefore ask you to hold back a bit and see what the reaction is before doing any more changes.Thanks.--Light current 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot,but I've finished now on the two topic Electrics and Noise and feel that they are in much better shape now ready for the attempted cleanup to be finished off. I am finding that the best way to work out the solution we seek is to try this out with real pages, and it's probably the best way to demonstrate the value in the idea since we are finding this so difficult. I hope not to upset anyone of course, but really the electronics pages were such a mess in places that I felt it best to try to fix some things, for example I changed a couple of names for uniformity. I've commented everything, and feel that since some of these pages have been marked for tidying up for a long time, I should be forgiven for trying to improve matters on a big scale. Glad you like it. I'm off to bed, and will then rest and take in further comments. Personally I feel this is it, pending automation. --Lindosland 03:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)