Browse |
Obsolete and resolved comments have been moved to .
= The structure of this page. =
This page s layout is important. To make it clear, it is not written from any intentional point of view, instead it is an overview of the category structure used on Wikipedia. The eight main categories (Culture, Geography, ...) are the ones used on the 23:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: The page is too long and overloaded. It should to be redesigned and shortened. We have duplicated entries on the page. It is bad. We don t need overlapping categories on the page. One of overlapping categories should be removed. Please, lets be more serious to the page. I can t recive the reason, than the page was not changed for a long time and then it should not to be changed. 09:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::As somebody who participated in the discussions before the implementation of the current layout, I agree with Norm, please provide a sample of how you think your layout should be arranged as a subpage of your talk page, say: 11:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
=Proposal to replace some invaluable links=
#remove from Geography: Antarctica, Landforms, Subterranea, Villages
Object/Disagree. *Antarctica - since this is a continent, I cannot see why this is deemed unnecessary or non valuable. Some countries are even claiming parts of it (but not the US). *Landforms are standard geographical features.
I don t propose to remove this articles from Wikipedia at all. Or to remove from some category. I just say, than this articles are useless in this page only. If somebody is interesting in Antarctica, Landforms, Subterranea could use links like 14:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) :By the way, invaluable means priceless , in other words, so valuable that they can t be bought, as if they were really good links, in this case, not useless, not bad at all. I understood what you meant by unvaluable , anyway. 22:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Thank you. 09:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Proposal 10:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
= Mathematics a top level category =
I m probably more fond of mathematics than most people - I did four years of it at university, including some graduate courses - but I just can t see that it deserves a place as a top level category alongside Science and Technology . -- 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Link to portals, not categories =
Hi, I m wondering what you all think about Browse section like that of the German wikipedia, in which they link to the portals, not the categories themselves. On the main page there is a Portale section which has links to different portals on the wikipedia - see [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Mathematik] for the mathematics one. I see that the english wikipedia also has some good looking portals, but they are on the bottom of the page, and are not categorized. I personally think that a link to the portal is much more helpful than a simple link to the category, since the category is usually a mess of articles and subcategories, while the portals are thought-out, organized pages that present what wikipedia has to offer in a much more accessible format. Right now of course, not all of the links on the Browse page have portals, but before I start working on it, what do you think -- 23:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
= Both Computer science & Computing at this level =
Computer science is considered a subcategory of Computing (on Wikipedia), yet Computer science is listed under Mathematics and Computing is listed under Technology. Factually, this might be fine, but on a high-level browse page, I think seeing both seemingly similar categories (yet in two different places on the same page) could be confusing for the average reader. Or even for a Computer Scientist... 
Thoughts -- 06:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
:Hm, I m not sure... Computer Science is also a subcategory of Mathematics. Is the distinction between the two subjects well defined I ll need to come back to this to take a better look at it. If computer science is theory and computing is practice, I d say the links are where they should be. A user interested in 16:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
= Adding health sciences to science and nature category =
I have added health sciences as, currently, categories such as nursing/ dentistry are only able to be accessed from the main page via the very broad category of applied science and then as subcategories of health science. I think this is justified as information science and earth science have their own category. However, I am happy for alternatives to be proposed, or for this to be reverted if people do not agree. For example, nursing can be seen as a social science or even an art rather than science.-- 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Portals box to top =
I m thinking it might be a good idea to move the portals box to the top of the page. Now it s hidden behind all the categories. It s only a small box and the categories wouldn t be hidden onscreen below it. This could drive some more traffic to the wikiportals, which i think they can really use. 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) :[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Browse&oldid=15844218 Like this] .... 03:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Good idea -- 15:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::I like it too. -- 21:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this page blank 2005-06-29 02:00:57 (UTC)
= Business portal =
|
There was a suggestion that 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::It would be neat to have a business portal, but I don t know how much is needed to support it. 19:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC) :::Maurreen! nice to hear from you! How is the Version 1 team 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC) You can change the colors, as well. Just ask.
:Hi! Thank you, . I like the blue much more than the green. :I ve never edited a portal before. Are there instructions anywhere :I m sorry to complain, but the way the boxes are laid out looks a little odd on my screen. :The Version 1 team didn t get very far. But sometimes I work on core articles through . :How are you 21:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::Duh, I just saw the Edit button. 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you. 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:: Definitely, thanks. I will jump on it this weekend. I hope we can recruit more help. -- 05:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:There is already a . Is it now possible to have a top level section for Business and Economics . pamri 05:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
= WHAT HAPPENED!! =
This is an exact copy of what appears on the Main Page! Of what use is it now-- 16:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
=June 07, 2005 - DISASTER! Implement the Dewey Decimal System!=
While the United States has over 9,000 public libraries, not one person has suggested implimentation of the Dewey Decimal System While there is no doubt a western influence over the system (see 200s, 800s, 900s), the DDC continues to be used and implemented worldwide. Think of the relevance that wikipedia could then have to actual print libraries!
A wikiversion could make minor adjustments to culturally biased sub-categorizations where necessary, just as many private libraries have chosen to do.
Let s not re-invent the wheel and instead concentrate on making great articles. IMPLEMENT THE DEWEY DECIMAL SYSTEM FOR CATEGORY NAMES!
: If you want the Dewey Decimal system, you ll find it in the 12:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments -- 16:03, 06 Jun 2005 (UTC)
copy of Dewey Decimal system moved to Dewey Decimal Classification.
:If the Dewey Decimal System is so great, why doesn t the U.S. Library of Congress use it (see 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Yahoo! Directory is probably based on DDC =
Possibly the most relevant categorization on the web
Arts & Humanities
Business & Economy
Computers & Internet
Education
Entertainment
Government
Health
News & Media
Recreation & Sports
Reference
Regional
Science
Social Science
Society & Culture
--
= Proposal for some category changes =
Library Science says to use five basic facets to classify things (see my comments on ). I suggest that we adopt three of them for some of the major categories, namely Personality (Topic), Time (History), and Space (Geography). Additionally, I suggest that, to achieve simplicity, and avoid scaring non-ontologists (ie. people who don t care about the organisation of knowledge), that we put the top-level headings from Topic alongside History and Geography. As Personality facets, I d suggest Arts, Science & Technology, Human Systems (aka Social Science), and Religion (these are the traditional four university faculties). You d end up with this sort of translation:
I think after a reorganisation link this, there would be a bit of fiddling with the minor categories, but we d end up with a better overall system.
Also, could we put the portals in with the rest, and mark them with a + or something And for the major headings (ie. Arts), can we link to all three of the Article, the Category, and the Portal
Since someone said that we should make mockups of proposals, try this: . To forestall discussion, the Religions are those over 1% of the world s population, ordered by size. I ve done as little rearrangement of the subcategories as possible, except extracting the ones to create Arts, and seriously compressing Mathematics. Also, if anyone knows how to link to Portals, let me know.
(Sat Jun 4 15:01:02 UTC 2005)
:I too think links to portals would be much more helpful than links to categories. Also, you might consider putting a more link at the end of each category that links to a list of topics on that subject; for example, after the religion section, put in a link to ) 18:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
::My choice of ordering was a) according to the library science acronym PMEST, with Personality/Topic first, Space/Geography second, and Time third, and b) in alphabetical order by topic (Arts, Human Systems, Science, Religion -- oops :) ). But see also my comments below about my historical approach. -- 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: why would you want to replace mathematics by religion -- 20:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I m approaching it from an historical point of view. In the beginning (of the University), there were only two fields of study, Theology and Philosophy. Philosophy eventually gave rise, AFAIK, to Arts, Science, and Social Science (which is why you get a Ph.D). That s why I ve put Religion last, even if alphabetically, it comes before Science. As with everything, it depends on your point of view. -- 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just to summarise so far, the complains about this proposal are:
More opinions on the above requested. -- 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Good idea. 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I ve reorganised the links in the categories some, since we seem to agree on all the major categories except Religion. I m still not satisfied with how Human Systems has been done; I think I need to let it percolate for a bit longer. Also, if anyone has any bright ideas for what to call the category I ve labelled Resource Allocation , please let me know. -- 13:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Need to sync with template forks =
have exactly the same content as the two main parts of this page, except that I m sure they are slowly diverging. I think the content should be re-synched and those templates simply added to this page, to prevent duplication of effort, and to make sure everyone who s using those tables gets the benefit of all the improvements made to them.
Also, 20:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:It turns out takes care of the latter. I put it on this page, which resulted in the addition of Philosophy, which is odd in that it doesn t transclude a Wikiportal like the others. -- 05:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC) :SteveVertigo (SV) points out that the does not include a quick link to the actual list of categories below the portal. I propose augmenting the links bar with a link to a heading ===Subcategories and articles:===. Since Komencanto has augmented the links with a 9th, it now laps beyond 1 line; thus the link could be named literally Subcategories and articles: with little impact to the layout. Also, in case someone wishes to shorten up the layout, then the Subcategories and articles: link could be named literally with the heading as above, which would satisfy SV s criticism. If no one else has objections, I will proceed with the changes as above after a wait of a half-day or so. 15:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC) :Sorry, Beland, the 8 portals link needs to also handle the case for the Browse Wikipedia page. What we need is a template which can handle the extra arguments for the Subcats and Articles link for SteVertigo. Since Browse Wikipedia does not really have a place for me to put in a corresponding Subcats and Articles link, I had to fallback to the previous version of the 8-category bar. It will take some extra work to get the 8-portal template working for the Browse Wikipedia case. Komencanto and Elfguy, any other ideas 18:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
= Redundancy with =
Should the portal section here be merged with 05:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC) :I believe so, since it was originally placed thare because it was nowhere else. I went ahead and removed it. - 11:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
= Parallel structure with =
As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I found the three main topical browse pages - this, - extremely confusing. I believe much of my confusion was because they missed a good deal of parallel structure for the entries beneath the main headings. I took some time to add entries to fill in the blanks, such as adding history by country categories here, but they have been reverted. I ve read on more than one occasion that various versions of user guides are too big. However, I believe this perspective often comes at an unnecessary learning curve price to the novice and intermediate user. Usability should be just as valued a criterion as brevity for navigation aids.
I propose that, whenever possible, these three main topical browse pages have parallel structures in terms of the eight main categories and bottom-level entries - category/portal/article for X - (e.g., 05:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
= Rename to Wikipedia:Browse by category =
05:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC) :One year ago, Aug 29 2004 it was indeed named Wikipedia:Browse by category. In the course of time, it got shortened to Wikipedia:Browse. All of this happened by consensus. Before Aug 2004, there was only the WikipediaTOC of articles. When categories became widespread, Browse by category became viable, using the same scheme as for the Articles. It was at that time that the WikipediaTOC was renamed to Wikipedia:Browse by overview. Now that portals are starting to spread, it was only natural that the same outline scheme would appear. 02:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
= Business and Economics =
Why isn t Business and Economics one of the top level categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pamri Pamri] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pamri Talk] 09:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
= Personal life =
I believe it is time to deep-six 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)|
|