Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 14 March 2006

first talk

This is something I have introduced into several pages, and would like to suggest as a useful concept. It should probably have a label as is the case for 'disambiguation page' --Lindosland 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I note the change to Misplaced Pages:Root page. I wonder if root page should be a category, like Disambiguation. I'm not sure.

I also tend to think it might be useful to place 'This is a Root page at the top of the article, along with 'see also' followed by just the most pertinent links (duplicating from the main See also list at the bottom of the article. I'll give it a try. --Lindosland 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming? (section of material moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation)

Obviously, there are a lot of cases where such a page is useful. But the proposed implementation isn't exactly what I want.

• Really, all pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title could be root pages. We just need some nice well-known text somewhere that make this clear, so that the disambiguation warriors don't strip the pages to lists of entries — a problem well documented on numerous complaints and talk pages!

• I suggest that the "Multi-stub pages" section be moved up to "When to disambiguate" (to clearly indicate that the disambig template not be used — in fact it's in the wrong section now, so I'll do that right away), and also copied to WP:GTL and MOS:DP and others.

• A formal name for such pages would be good, such as root or signpost. A "better name discussion" for these pages might be needed!

--William Allen Simpson 07:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid "signpost" as this presents confusion beside Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost, unfortunately. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Misplaced Pages talk:Root page is a better place for the naming discussion? Thanks/wangi 15:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

deja vu

Gives me a sense of deja-vu - this is exactly like the signpost articles I put up for deletion a month back: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles. I'll list root pages later on this evening. Thanks/wangi 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Deja-vu alone is no reason for deletion. I think there is need for this or something like it, and so it seems did someone before me. I cannot compare my solution to the previous attempt since its been deleted. I'd like to see further discussion, as the concept seems to solve a problem I keep coming across. I did get a 'well done' message after using this approach to sort out a call for 'cleanup' on Animation. --86.135.217.246 21:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Deja vu isn't my reason for deletion - i've given my reason on the MfD page: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Root page. Also see the two linked discussions above. Thanks/wangi 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, but I read in the first of those links that a signpost article "essentially does the same thing as a disambiguation page". This couldn't be further from the truth for the Root page idea: please read the explanation I put up more carefully.

Misplaced Pages is full of articles duplicating each other's contents. Disambiguation is only for different meanings, not associated topics. If used as a means of tidying up a large page, disambiguation fragments the ideas, leaving no common explanation. This is about hierarchy. Without a Root page, editors fail to spot each other's articles with slightly different (and unexpected) names. The Root page is about coordinating page content, and minimising duplication of effort. It is also different from a Project, which is about cooperating over a body of entries.

Please think again about this. Regards --Lindosland 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't discuss first because I felt that demonstrating (carefully and with the best of intentions) was the clearest way to provide a basis for discussion and bring in comments. I also understood that the articles talk page was a good place to discuss, and I asked for discussion there --Lindosland 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is marked as a proposed policy, as it should be, now, and the MfD is rather unfounded. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to reply to the implication on the closed MfD that I was acting in bad faith here. When I put the page up for deletion it hadn't been discussed in any expected place and accepted policy/guidelines we being edited to include it as if it were policy. Sure, I jumped the gun. Also the idea is so similar to signpost articles which were MfD'd at the end of Novemeber that I expected the ultimate consensus here would also be to delete. Additionally I was the one who actually added the {{proposed}} tag. Thanks/wangi 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, with the caveat that deep hierarchies are hard to maintain and proposals that involve them have generally been rejected. As long as there aren't generally root pages for other root pages, I think this will work. Lindosland, you can make an example of a root page in your userspace, and point to it from Misplaced Pages:Root page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that I have been thinking of something similar, that I was considering calling "Topic guides" that would make it easier to find related topics and explain the relationships between them. 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right Rspeer, I think there should never be a Root page for a Root page. That's the problem with other methods, they just confuse. In my work on Animation, which I made a Root page, I considered whether Graphic was a Root page for Animation, and Drawing for Graphic etc. but you can go on like that forever and it defeats the object of providing a point of reference for pulling together work on associated topics. I'll add text to that effect. --Lindosland 11:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of the common aspects

A root page may be a useful solution for the problem that a disambiguation page hardly allows explanation of the common aspects.--Patrick 12:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Relationship between Root pages and Portals

If the Root pages concept is adopted, it would likely be useful to articulate some formal relationship between Root pages and Portals. Portals are designed to be introductions to broad topic areas while Root pages are (so I'm interpreting) meant to be introductions to topic areas as well. One transition method from the current state to one including Root pages could be examining each of the Portals and introducing a "Root pages" section in each that would provide a hierarchy step. I would, in fact, suggest that this change be considered as a preceding step before implementation of a Root page tag across a significant number of articles. I would further suggest that the tag be implemented, if adopted, via a WikiProject that would coordinate Portal representation and article tagging. This would be in addition to the actions of individual editors, not in replacement of. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thats sounds good to me, though I don't claim familiarity with what Portals are about. Note that I have just revised the page, emphasising the 'star' structure, and warning that this is not about creating a multi-level hierarchy. I've also emphasised that it is perhaps more about enabling coordinated editing than assisting the user, and it is certainly not about guiding the user forever forwards or backwards. --Lindosland 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of Redirect from Root page to Misplaced Pages:Root page

Following the use of a Robot all instances of Root page were changed to the full form Misplaced Pages:Root page. The redirect was deleted.

I feel this was premature and have asked for it to be reversed. My feeling is that use of the shortened form Root page is easier, and there is nothing wrong in using the Redirect. There are several precedants for this, such as Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, which has several redirects in place including Disambiguation and Disambiguation page. --Lindosland 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't put things about Misplaced Pages process in the main article namespace. Not even with a redirect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Refined text clarifies use as the 'core of a star'

In attempting the refine the text I have found it necessary to clarify several principles.

A Root page cannot have a Root page. (avoids endless hierarchy)

A page labelled as a Root page, should not be listed in another article as a root page unless it is considered the Root page of that article. (Else the unifying object of the idea is defeated.)

An article can list two pages as its Root pages? Possible, but not recommended (example given).

Having clarified that this is about 'star' association, not hierarchy, I wonder if Root is the best word. Other possibilities might be 'Core page', 'Intro page', 'Topic page', 'Bonding page'. --Lindosland 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Hub page is the ideal name for this idea! I hope I have not 'spoke' too soon! :-))--Light current 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Root page and categories and templates (brainstorming)

The article that shares a name with a category is often a Root page in the sense used here, if not in fact then in potential. Should there be some wordage included that says something to this? Should there be an attempt, for instance, to limit to one Root page per category? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was one portal per category. I'd say one root page per series template.

--William Allen Simpson 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Purpose is unclear

As I interpret it, looking at Animation as an example, a root page is an article which introduces a topic in its broadest form and serves as a hub to more specific topics (that's what I think they should be called, "hub articles"). Unless I've misinterpreted, isn't this guideline simply a codification of what has emerged naturally in varying forms, or is it something new? For instance, the only difference I see between the root-pagified Animation example and, say, Philosophy or War, is that Animation has italicized meta-messages inserted into it and the others do not. The messages don't seem to add much benefit and if they were removed (on say Animation) the article would stand perfectly fine. Another point this guideline discusses is linking back to the "root page" from more specialized ones. Yet most child articles I have seen link to their parent naturally within the first sentence, so...why do it again? The guideline also says something about providing an easy way for editors and readers to find a list of associated topics, but isn't that what categories and "List of X topics" articles are for? So far this guideline smells of instruction creep and is somewhat redundant with Misplaced Pages:Summary style, at least by my interpretation. Can its purpose be clarified?—jiy (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking along similar lines as jiy. Sure, animation is a "Root page" where a general topic branches off into more specific articles. But ideally this what every encyclopedia aritcle should be. I don't see the need to brand an article as a Root page. --Commander Keane 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, almost every article can be though of like this. For example the Boeing 737 article doesn't go into the whole explanation about what a jet aircraft is - it just links to jet aircraft. Likewise here why should cell animation simply state it's a form of animation and let the user follow the link? Why can't the animation article simply just refer to other types of animation, why the need for complication? Thanks/wangi 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you are both right, but you are missing the point that a Root page assists editors and formalises what is otherwise a bit too haphazard. Please see further explanation of how it helps editors under 'Summary pages' below. --Lindosland 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem is we're not writing an encyclopedia for editors. Anything intended for editors should live on talk pages or the wikipedia namespace. Thanks/wangi 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wangi, but clearly newer editors are having a hard time figuring out the best form for these pages. when folks are asking for similar things over and over, it's time to pay heed! --William Allen Simpson 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but lets not forget: Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references. Thanks/wangi 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm baffled. Everything is linked to everything else - how do you pick a real "root" other that perhaps "Cogito, ergo sum" ? An encyclopedia with a million spelling and grammar errors needs good articles well-written and edited more than it needs another arbitrary hierarchical scheme. --Wtshymanski 18:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This just adds another layer of cruft to the project. I don't want to be told when I visit an article that it's a "root article". Says who? What if I disagree with the structure? The whole thing is annoying. If the purpose is to help editors, then the structure should be hidden away where only editors can see it, and only editors who subscribe to the idea at that. Anyway, hierarchies are so nineteenth-century. --Heron 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary pages

My observation is that there are quite a few of these pages already. They provide a root for branches on related subjects.

These are easily distinguished from disambiguation pages by the lack of the "(disambiguation)" title and the lack of the Disambiguation (or disambig or dab) template.

Therefore, I propose that these pages be called "Summary pages" paired with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (summary pages) aka Misplaced Pages:Summary style.

Note: thus matching the current pairing for Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

--William Allen Simpson 00:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Can some of these be readily identified by looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Main? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the Summary page suggestion is a good one, and I like the linking with Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Strictly, the term used in the summary style article seems to be Summary article, but I prefer Summary page, which pairs with Disambiguation page.

Most of the commments so far view the concept in terms of of utility to the reader, concluding that since many existing pages act as Summary pages this is nothing new. I agree that the idea does little for the reader that cannot already be done with Wikilinks but it's main value is in coordinating the editing of pages.

When I started to edit Computer generated imagery this page did not have any reference in its first paragraph to Animation and surprisingly it still doesn't have (though it probably should!). Nor did it have Animation under 'See also'. People tend to think in their own boxes when creating pages, and I guess what I am trying to do is formalise a scheme that gets people thinking about Summary style.

Once a page is labelled Summary page, editors know that this is a place where the reader should find links to ALL daughter pages. If some daughter pages do not contain links to other daughter pages, then this does not matter so much. It takes 100 edits to cross-link 10 daughter pages, and as things stand currently such cross linking tends to be patchy. Without adequaate cross-linking, separated groups arise. Nominating a Summary page avoids the need to check for full cross-linking.

With all links to daughters pages provided on the summary page, the editor who starts a new page can quickly check whether the article he is about to create already exists under a name he may not have thought of. He can also see clearly where he should place a link to his new page as top priority. --Lindosland 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Summary/root and daughter/branch pages should use series templates. There's no need for other links between daughter/branch pages.

--William Allen Simpson 15:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not consistent with the definition of series templates at Misplaced Pages:Template namespace, which says 'templates are used to duplicate the same content across several pages.' While it would be possible to provide a box listing all related pages on all daughter pages using a template, this is ugly, and a warning to that effect is given. It in no way indicates which page is the Summary page, and it simply clutters every page with too many links that would be more appropriately placed on the Summary page. I have seen no examples of such use. --Lindosland 11:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that Lindosland is in the process of changing all the Roots to Summary, and that's a good thing -- but it would be very helpful to the rest of us to use the Preview function while writing, and only Save when you are done! Avoid conflict, and make reading your change history easier.

--William Allen Simpson 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do, all the time, but I still make mistakes, or change my mind on a re-read. It's ok - that's what 'minor edit' is for (they are all marked M). --Lindosland 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I have found that spending too long working on an edit can actually result in edit-conflict if someone else changes the page before you save your version, and that it is therefore better to proceed in stages sometimes. I also find that Misplaced Pages logs me off at times (but the indication still says logged in)(Misplaced Pages goes down quiet often) making it desirable to save edits quickly --Lindosland 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

difference between "root page" and "summary style"

The "root page" ideas here *sound* good. But I'm a little fuzzy. Once again, how does Misplaced Pages:Root page differs from the Misplaced Pages:Summary style? (In theory, you should be able to find all pages with that style by looking at the backlinks from the {{details}} template, but I think there's a few pages that people just cut-and-pasted manually, because they didn't know about the template. ) The "summary style" is used by

• heart
• electricity
• technology

and just about every page that has a Category named after it. (Except for sense, which uses yet another completely different style ...).

• Is this supposed to be a new, improved version of Misplaced Pages:Summary style, making the old version obsolete? (If so, shouldn't we merge them, and discuss improvments on *its* talk page?)
• Is this supposed to be an alternative, for pages that (for some reason) make this more appropriate than "summary style"?
• Is it possible for some pages to be both?

I think I'm missing the point somewhere. --DavidCary 05:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No David, I think you've hit it on the head... Misplaced Pages:Summary style, {{details}} and {{background}} are doing the same thing as this proposal is trying to. Thanks/wangi 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This gave me much pause for thought over Summary Style, but I conclude that this is definitely not the same. Summary style requires the 'Summary page' to be just that; a summary of its daughter articles. This creates a bit of a chicken-and-egg editing problem, as the daughter articles cannot be summarised until they have been written, and a Summary page cannot be established as such until it has daughters.

A 'Root page' (and I now go back to preferring that term), is indeed the Root from which other pages grow. It incorporates not so much a summary of it's 'branch' articles, but an introduction that can form the common basis of understanding for any future branch articles. It's main value, I repeat, is to editors, and I dispute the claim made above that 'Misplaced Pages is not written for editors'. Misplaced Pages is very much about editing, and spurious articles on similar topics by editors that have not noticed each others' work are a common occurence, giving rise to frequent calls for clean-up. I think that this is why, as several folk have commented, 'ideas like this keep recurring - perhaps there is a need'.

It has been pointed out to me that 'self references' are not approved of, largely on the grounds that every article should stand alone elsewhere, and so my instruction that Root pages should start with 'This is a Root Page' is undesirable. It also clutters the top of the page somewhat. I suggest instead that root pages should include the category 'Rootpage' in their category listing at the end of the page. I don't think though that this means that the Root page concept is just a category, it is still Misplaced Pages style, but with a category label as part of its functioning.

While I think it might be a good idea to redefine 'Summary style' as providing an introduction rather than a summary, the very word summary is then perhaps a misnomer. I also share with others a dislike of the summary boxes, which appear in full as clutter on every daughter page, and also require knowledge and effort to update properly on the template. The root page concept is tidier, as it does not attempt to duplicate all links on every page, it just points to 'base'. I therefore suggest that Root page should proceed as an independant experiment alongside Summary style. I will update the text to reflect my latest view as stated here. --Lindosland 13:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, we also have hub pages. And also summary style in the example suggests to have an introductory lead ("World War II was the most extensive and costly armed conflict in the history of the world ...").

Are we going to create 200 names for the same concept? --Army1987 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Revived as it is in use on some 'big' pages

I am reviving this concept as I see its use has been taken up on a few 'big' pages, and also some useful additions have appeared without comment, like the template.

There have been no major objections here, but there has been some support, as well as useage.

I submit that contributors here who question the concept seem to have dismissed it too quickly, without taking in the important differences. I have explained these in relation to disambiguation and signpost article and summary style.

I think this is a concept that will only be fully accepted and understood as people find it useful. Those who think it duplicates other concepts are wrong, and need to study the issues more carefully. Hub page was not something I had seen, but it is hierarchical, and there has been much criticism of hierarchical attempts as leading to confusion. It is also not nearly as thoroughly defined as Root page. No, we don't want hundreds of methods, but we can live with a few and let useage be the test. I propose leaving things as they are. If the useage grows to a significant level then I will call for support here, on the talk pages of all articles using my method. If it does not, then no harm is done. --Lindosland 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I don't think that a root page and a hub page are similar, and I love this idea and think it should become policy. Let me know how I can help. -Visorstuff 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hub pages

As the instigator of the 'hub page' idea, I am pleased to find that others are aware of the need for a concept of this sort for large subjects with many branches.

I was not aware of the Root page page until today. I will take some time to study the root page idea and it may be that they might perform (or could be made to perform ) the same function and are therfore worthy of merging. However, I will reserve judgement for now.--Light current 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my talk--Light current 06:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Root page

Crossed swords! Arch Enemies! Good grief, I thought I'd got clear of WikiWars for now. Thanks for your help, and yes, we need support but I'm not sure how to proceed now. I had a long session going through pages in Electronics as well as some others I'd worked on and which appear in the category page now. I was fairly brave in dropping in the templates and branch lists, with occasional notes urging people to carry on building the branch lists. I hoped that might bring interest, but so far just rejection from Electrical eng. I sent him a message back asking if he'd read 'Root page' first. What was the nature of your crossed swords? Was it about Hub pages, or general things? Do you think we should call for a vote before taking the 'not policy' notice down? If you want to take it down I won't object! --Lindosland 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well these were wars primarily about NPOV on Electrical engineering and technical disagreements on Transformer These have now died away- ended in an uneasy truce you might say!

Maybe we should just leave electrical engineering for now and wait for the idea to become more generally accepted by the majority of editors before retrying.

Knowing the nature of my previous adversaries, I think it would be very wise to win a vote before declaring this thing as policy, then that will quell any arguments before they start!.

BTW I ve been roaming around Electronics and its sub pages adding backlinks etc as I go, and its a delight to be able to whizz from one place to another (and back again) with ease. Just a few problems but Ive put those on talk:root page or your talk page so I'm sure you'll see them. --Light current 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples of candidates for the Hub/Root page treatment:

existing (primary) hub pages that have lots of links to large subsections

• Civil engineering
• Chemical engineering
• Dielectric
• Electronics this is in particular need of hub and sub hubbing to clean up the mess!
• Electrical engineering
• Electricity
• Mechanical engineering
• Physics
• Waveguide

Pleas take alook at these pages and see if these would fit into the Hub/Root page concept.--Light current 17:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked again at Electronics, and it's true of course that there are many branches. So far though, the Hub page concept fails to refer back adequately I feel, and there seems to be no rule for labelling of sub-hub pages. If I go to Analogue electronics for example, I see nothing to point me to the Hub page Electronics. If you look at my page Audio quality measurement you will see that it lists the associated pages like Noise measurement and if you go there you see the reference back to the Root page first in the 'See other' listing.

I would also say, as I observed before, that the extensive listings on the Electronics hub page, plus the topics panel, make it very cluttered and complicated.

I would suggest labelling Electronics as a Root page. Then take out all the detailed listings but make sure you list Analogue electronics, Digital electronics and other major divisions under 'See also'. Then link the more specialised pages only from these, but make sure the Root page Electronics is listed on every one, top of the see other, with the note 'root page', as the central 'clearing house'.

There may be a case for calling Analogue electronics etc Hub pages, as distinct from the Root page which embodies the introduction, but I would always keep the links simple so that the Root page is the one that will take you where you want to go via the hub pages, and there is only one Root page from which everything springs and to which feedback regarding the whole topic structure is directed by editors. --Lindosland 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying a root page is at the top level, but that hub pages at the next level down may be necessary? If so, Im not sure how this is different from my primary hub and secondary hub idea. I agree that electronics and other associated pages are in a hell of a mess and this is one reason I want to get this organisation in place!

One area we disagree is where the links to the sub pages should be. I think they should be at the head of the introduction para to that particular topic on the hub/root page-- you think they should be at the bottom of the hub /root page?. BTW the term root implies that everything springs from it, whereas the term hub can be thought of as a starting point or as a central reference point when coming FROM a sub page. What are your views on these thoughts?--Light current 02:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was suggesting that maybe we could have hubs off the root page, but only tentatively, and I now doubt that it can work. I cannot answer your question as to how this differs from your primary and secondary hubs because you have not adequately defined them. If you were to actually label a hub as a 'primary hub' or a 'secondary hub', then I would ask, "do you allow going backwards as well as forward?" In other words, is it permissible for me to take your Electronics page which would be primary hub, and refer it back to 'Electricity', which surely forms a 'broader' hub? If so, do you then re-name your hub as a secondary hub, or 'electricity' as a 'pre-hub'? Such re-labelling could go on forever, causing clashes and weakening the very concept of a hub. Any attempt to label hubs with their levels, 'primary', 'secondary', etc seems to be doomed to confusion because of this problem that there is ALWAYS a higher topic if by 'higher', we mean 'broader'. If we don't actually label hubs as primary or secondary, then the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' seem to have no meaning, and might as well be discarded.

The problem gets bigger if you allow a hierarchy to go both forwards and backwards, and also allow hubs to link back to multiple 'pre-hubs', as this can lead, in the extreme, to iterative loops where a root page becomes a distant root page for itself via an unexpected path! If you've followed this, then perhaps you are begining to see, as I did, that there is a very basic problem to be tackled here, and I don't think it has a solution, at least not one that accepts the existence of any hierarchy.

I think this problem of hierarchy is so fundamental that it should be spelled out on the article page, which I will now attempt to do, allong with some new suggestions. --Lindosland 16:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my definition on hub page, a primary hub is just that Primary. Therfore you cannot go higher in the heirrchy than a Primary hub. THe choice of which pages to designate primary hubs is, of necessity, arbitrary, but I should think that there would not need to be too many of them anyway and consensus on which pages are primary hubs would be easily reached. So as regards your question:

In other words, is it permissible for me to take your Electronics page which would be primary hub, and refer it back to 'Electricity', which surely forms a 'broader' hub? If so, do you then re-name your hub as a secondary hub, or 'electricity' as a 'pre-hub'?

the answer is NO. Lets keep it simple!--Light current 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

star == hierarchy

A star is an acyclic graph is a hierarchy, which is essentially what summary style is about. In your example of animation you make it clear that there is a problem with deciding which pages are root and which are not. Basically you make a very arbitrary decision that although graphics provides basic concepts used in animation, it is better to designate only animation as root page and not graphics. This is a deadly limitation. What you really want is for a page to be able to specify a rooter page, regardless of whether it is a root for other pages itself. Ideally the rooter page also refers back to its children, same as in your own proposal, and would explain briefly what its child is about, which is exactly summary style. Templates {{details}} and {{background}} are also already in place to accomodate this. Then all you need to do is choose good article titles and actually use summary style. -MarSch 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

MarSch your comment appears very sensible and, unless I misunderstand Lindosland's intentions, in fact may be the solution that both he and I have been seeking. I dont know what you mean by rooter page tho'. Do you mean root/hub ?

So its, summary style with back links on sub pages?

In my proposed system I would put a back link at the top of each 'Main' topic page so the reader could get back to the hub/root page. I have been experimenting with this on the Electronics hub page. Have a look!

In this way the root/hub/parent page is actually defined by the back link at the top of the sub page. I did not envisage a sub page having more than one root page BUT you could easily get back to another root/hub/parent by having a back link to that page also at the top of the sub page.

It seems simple now (unless Im missing something important)--Light current 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Electronics page shows very well what I have in mind when thinking of summary style. But suppose that some other page about a broader topic than electronics needs to discuss electronics. It could use summary style and electronics could link back to it. This is what I mean by a rooter page, more root. It may be easier though to envision one of the children of electronics growing out of proportion and needing to split off some articles for which it would become a root. -MarSch 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

MarSch: Yes, you are quite right that I make an arbitrary decision about what to choose as a root page, and the more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that in the end this has to be arbitrary for the simple reason that what we are dealing with here, ie encyclopedic objects and concepts are just not hierarchical! Living things are amenable to hierachical classification (just about), but other things aren't.

It's easy to create a false heirarchy for any given subject, but then if you come in somewhere else you realise that it's just based on your own chosen criteria. What criterion are we to use for hierarchy? The obvious one we all go for is 'broadness' - the wider ranging a topic seems to be the higher up the hierarchy we put it. But then if we go to the top of our hierarchy and think things through again we find a problem. Many topics seem to be close to many hub pages, depending on the criterion of 'closeness' that you choose. Trying to use the criterion of 'broadness' now breaks down.

For example: take a topic common to me and LightCurrent - filters. He might put filters as a sub-hub of electronics. Or he might put filter as a daughter of analog electronics. But then he needs to consider digital filter - does that go on digital electronics or what. And of course, filter has nothing special to do with electronics even, because there are optical filters and gamma ray filters and statistical filters and so on!

One lesson to take from this is to always make new pages quite specific, leaving the simple name, like 'filter' for the more general use. Even so, there seems to me to be no way to reconcile the problem that while electronic filter seems to be fundamentally a daughter of filter it is only so for those people interested in the general concept of filter, by way of example. Those looking at electronic filter are actually very unlikely to even want to look back at filter because they know what it means, but they are more likely to want to look at digital filter and analog filter and spacial filter and Sallen and Key filter and so on. What criterion are we using here? It's not hierarchy, its more like 'common interest grouping' - likely to interest the same people. --Lindosland 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What I object to is deceiving yourself that you're not talking about a hierarchy. Only a circular link would break hierarchy. Once you accept this, you will either retract your proposal or you will realize that there is no reason for limiting the number of levels. Once the number of levels is no longer limmited there is no need to make an arbitrary choice. If an article summarizes another article as per summary style, then it is a hub or a root for it. For this the ambiguous template {main} is used. All I'd like to see is the backlink to the parent. For which confusingly {main} is also sometimes used. Unfortunately my {background} template got deleted after a hundred nominations, although not by a margin making it a legal delete. -MarSch 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument has moved on somewhat since 26 Feb and discussion is now taking place on the talk page for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electronics. Please join in and give us your opinion if you have the time.--Light current 19:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When I just looked there, the 'discussion' link was red. Are you sure you meant Misplaced Pages:WikiProject electronics? --Heron 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, someone has created a project with the electronics not capitalised. The link you want is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electronics --Light current 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hub page merged onto Root page

The following text is copied from Misplaced Pages talk:Hub page

I am labelling this page historical, as its effect recently has been to create two discussions and I think that concentrating the discussion at Talk:Root page will help us achieve the consensus that I have been seeking there for some time.

Light current: I'm pleased to find someone who understands why we need something like this, and pleased to see you have adopted so many of my ideas. However, since I started Root page in December 2005 and have engaged in a lot of discussion over it on its talk page I am not happy with you copying so much of my text over to this page. You are entitled to copy of course, but in doing so you take the concept away from the historical discussion associated with it, and dilute my attempt to get a consensus there. When I came to Hub page there was no discussion going, whereas Root page had a lot of discussion on its talk page.

This does not mean that I am insisting on the name of Root page. We can change it to Hub page or anything else if a different name is agreed to be better, but adopting, as you say, 90% of the ideas on Root page, just to call them something else does not seem right. --Lindosland 14:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been several useful contributions to this topic recently, and some of the talk at Hub page may warrant being over to here now. Copied from wikipedia talk:hub page

Did you not hear that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? PLus, I did have some significant differences from your ideas. 90% was of course an over exaggeration! Im happy for all my postys to be copied to Root page. In fact I was just about to propose a merge of the two pages.--Light current 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will copy relevant talk from Hub page to here.--Light current 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from talk:Hub page

Lindosland, Having read the comments on this talk page and on talk:hub page, Im pretty sure that you and I have very similar views on this subject. What the page is called Im not too bothered, but the concept is essential for these very large subjects esp in engineering and science,(physics/ chemistry etc). If you now take a look at wikipedia:hub page you will see that I have adopted 90% of your proposals. I only differ on a few minor points. perhaps we could discuss these, come to an agreement, then surge forward to implement this long overdue and absolutely necessary concept!--Light current 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 16:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

SUMMARISING- a breakdown of the issues so far

The discussions on Root page and Hub page have now reached the point where I think I can summarise matters, and try to get to the core of a remaining problem.

• Support There is now substantial support, some of it very enthusiastic, for the concept of Root page, or something very much like it. Hub page has now been closed, to be merged here.

• A Base for editing Is a concept well supported. Several contributors have expressed an urgent need for the concept of a 'base camp' for editors, stating that big topics like Electronics are getting in a mess and need pulling together.

• A Common Introduction This idea is well supported and is already part of Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Summary style, however, does not lay down precise rules. For example it does not say that the Summary page must be labelled as such or state how this is to be done. It also talks about summary style in relation to one article as well as in relation to a series of article. It only says that 'it is a good idea' to include a navigational template. Such navigational templates get cumbersome, especially as they are repeated in full on daughter pages. The Root page concept shifts the burden of the full listing to one page only, leaving daughter pages free from clutter, with room for other, possibly more useful and diverse, links (see connectivity discussion.

• Back-referal This idea, first suggested in Root page, is well supported. A Root page is fundamentally a place that editors get taken to from many pages, so that once having found it they can then base their work around it, avoiding duplication. The idea of listing THE Root page for an article, either at the start, or first in the 'see also' list seems to be agreed. The fact that this precludes the possibility of listing more than one page as THE Root page, has been identified, since if that is done, then there is no 'base camp'.

• Root vs Rooter page Having established that there must only be one Root page for any article, if the word Root is to signify the 'base camp', it has become clear that back-referral for editors and back-referral for users are two different things. 'Rooter' has been used to distinguish the editing root from the hierarchical roots by one person.

• Hierarchy - The Unresolved Problem I do not think this has been adequately explored, and I propose that this is because encyclopedic topics do not have intrinsic hierarchy. They do, however, connect in interesting ways, as I will attempt to suggest now.

--Lindosland 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all the above, except I am not clear on the differences beetween root page and rooter page. Does there need to be such a distinction as readers are editors and editors are readers? The two terms as named are bound to create confusion, so I would appreciate you expalining the difference and necessity for these two separate entities.--Light current 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use such a term as Rooter, which might only confuse most people, but I was just observing that there is a problem which someone else, as I understand it, tried to explain by using these two different terms. The problem is that we must decide whether a Root page is a type of page, or whether it is a relationship, in the sense that a page is THE root page for another. If we do not distinguish between these meanings, then we end up saying that, for example Electronics is THE root page for Electronic filters and then appearing to contradict this by labelling Filter as a root page, and linking to it from Electronic filters. If the Root page is the base for editing, a common introduction, then there can only really be one root page (in this sense) for any page. From the point of view of the user however, it would seem to make some sense to allow a page to link back to several Root pages. --Lindosland 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well again my initial response is that a sub page could indeed be arrived at from more than one root page. Filter could be a sub hub splitting into all the different types of filter.

Root page should be a type of page (not necessarily the sole root page for any article) - arbitrarily chosen by consensus of editors. It need not be the only root page for another (sub page). Otherwise the system may be too restrictive. Im not sure tho' if this might lead to other logical inconsistencies. Actually I think this may be the answer for max flexibility & min complexity. Parents may have many children-- children may have many parents (not just 2)--Light current 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)!

Back to 'Root Page'

I feel quite strongly that the back links from sub pages should be prominently displayed at the head of each sub page. THat way it is easy for the reader to return to the hub and go off in a different direction if he has arrived at a particular sub page by mistake or is simply browsing. Listing it at the bottom only involves the reader searching thro' a mass of blue links to find his way back but I have no objection to the Root page being listed at the bottom of the page AS WELL as at the top.--Light current 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking that I too would like to see the back-link at the head of each page. I was put off this idea by a reluctance to clutter the start of the article any more than it is already, but if it is kept short then perhaps thats OK.

There is also merit in putting the back-link at the start of the 'see also' list, as it makes that list a compete record, the one place to look for navigation. One possibility that I have been considering is that in the future, an extra bit of software might allow us to click and create a large tree structure, like a family history, on any page to check surrounding topics. --Lindosland 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Im with you on this!--Light current 23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems of Hierarchy - adding Connectedness

I think that the problem of whether to aim at creating a hierarchy or not is our big sticking point.

Hierarchy seems attractive when you work on any given set of pages. Editors of big topics like electronics are finding that there are just too many associated pages clustered around them, so that it makes sense to create at least two levels of 'hubs'. So, for example it seems to make sense to make Electronics a Hub, and then Analog electronics and Digital electronics and Electronic components etc, as Sub-Hubs with things clustered around them. But what do we do with Electronic filters? Do we put this as a sub-hub of Electronics which has the merit of allowing us to cluster analog filter and digital filter and transverse filter and Bessel filter etc etc around this? Or do we put Analog filter on the Analog electronics Sub-Hub, thus separating it from all the other forms of filter. And whichever approach we take, what do we say to the person editing Filters who wants to put all our filters around his hub, along with optical filters, because he says they fall more into the category filter than they do into Electronics. If he puts them round his hub too then the common introduction and point of reference concepts are lost.

Examples like this make me think that encyclopedia articles are not amenable to hierarchical organisation. Why should they be? There are an infinite number of hierarchies that we can chose, depending what our criterion is. We get drawn into thinking in terms of a hierarchy of 'broadness' when editing our own group of pages, but forget that 'closeness' in some other sense also matters. If there was just one hierarchy, then all articles would lead back through a series of Hubs to just one page perhaps? What would that be! Something like Thing which splits to Animate and Inanimate etc, a bit like the guessing game?

This problem led me down a different path to thinking of articles as like individuals in a population, connected in all sorts of ways. Are there typically only Six degrees of separation between any two articles on Misplaced Pages, as has been shown true for human beings? Should we perhaps be taking note of research into this phenomenon, which concludes that it is a combination of 'short-range' and 'long range' links that make this possible. We look around at our network of close friends, and then find that one is an actor, who knows a famous actor, who met the queen, and suddenly we are just three handshakes from the queen! Do similar linkages apply to topics I wonder, such that we should first create our local communities around Root pages, however arbitrarily, with the emphasis on coordinated editing, and then encourage the putting in place of 'long range' links between the individual topic pages to increase 'connectedness'. This seems to make some sense if you think of putting Electronic filter in the Electronics grouping, but then add a link to Filter in its 'see also' list. Does this explain why I was wary all along of placing importance on 'hierarchy'?

Returning to Electronics though, it does not seem to satisfactory to try to cluster all its (possibly hundreds of) pages around one Root page. Yet these pages do seem to share something important in common.

What if we say that a Root page can back-link to a Root page of its own, but that no page can back-link to more than one Root-page. So Electronic filter does not back-link to Filter, surprising though that may seem to some, because that would devalue the Root page concept from the point of view of coordinated editing. Instead Electronic filter just lists Filter - forming one of those long-range connections that perhaps add more connectedness than any further attempt at hierarchy could. On this basis, we get to back-link Electronics to Electricity, which in turn has as its 'branch pages' Electronics, Power distribution,Static electricity etc. Where does Battery go? Same problem as Electronics filter, we put it arbitrarily with Electricity, and link from Electronic components for the long-range connectivity.

Note that I've moved away from Hub and Sub-Hub in this reasoning, because they now add nothing, but give us a big problem when we try to link back. If Electronics is a Hub and we back-link it to Electricity what does that make Electricity. A Super-Hub, or a Pre-Hub perhaps? The Root page concept allows this without any re-naming problems, but if we are to get this freedom then we must make Root page a relationship such that any page has only one 'Root page' to which it back-links. Any ideas on all this? Personally I'm beginning to think it could be the research subject for a PhD! --Lindosland 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My first response is KISS (Keep it simple). As simple as possible. Then its more likely to work. I must re-read your submission more carefully to respond fully.--Light current 01:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Subjects should not be pushed further down the heirarchical chain than absolutely necessary. So with electronic filters, this should be linked from the hub/root page. Analog filters may also be liked from the analog electronics page also!--Light current 14:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, except where a Root page is becoming too big (I suggest more than 20 branches will not normally be desirable. Distributing topics around the second level helps keep the lists small.

I've taken your advice to keep it simple, and have adopted your back-link text, which now just reads 'Back to'. I've set up a template {{backlink}} which is easy to remember and avoids the confusion of saying 'back to root page' when you are already on a root page. I've just put this in place on Animation, and it looks good. I've also added a rule that Root pages must have a 'Branch pages' section which lists just the branch pages for that root. I think this clarifies things a lot, and I've said that the back-link, if there is one, should be put at the top of this list, so that the list now allows navigation both ways.

I'm also suggesting that the link addition will be automated in future, so that all you ever do is add the back-link template at the start of the article and the rest is done for you. How's that for simple? One reason for adding a 'Branch pages' section is so that the program or software 'bot' could easily locate where to put the links in. --Lindosland 16:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Index page

Created Military of Australia which serves like an index page. -- Zondor 08:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You've done the same as at List of articles about Mormonism and listed everything. This may be useful, and we should probably allow it, but one advantage of the Root page system, especially if multiple levels are now to be allowed, is that each Root page only really needs to list its own branches. To see the wider picture you navigate back to the previous Root and then out from there.

So you could make Department of Defence, Australian Army, etc into Root pages, and each would then have around 10 branch pages. Military of Australia then has only to list its 5 Branch pages. I suggest that you put each Root page into the recomended format with an introduction and then Root and Branches listed under 'see also'. If you want to give the full index, add this onto the end, after the 'see also', with the heading 'Full index to pages' or something like that. --Lindosland 13:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I got the wrong impression. I was thinking of Misplaced Pages:Hub page. -- Zondor 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Topic lists -- Zondor 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rootlink

What is the purpose of this? -- Zondor 08:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply to create a standardised form of text that's easily added. Standardised text could be useful if someone tried to automate the adding of links, perhaps using a software 'bot', for example adding a link to a branch on the Rootpage as soon as the Root page is listed on the branch page. While the use of a template for just a few words might seem pointless, it allows us to change the precise text at any time in the future on every page using it! The presence of {{ }} also serves to make the text unique and easily recognised by a software 'bot' which could put in the links on Rootpages automatically.

I've just changed the recommended template to {{tl|backlink]], and put it in place on Animation articles. As well as being easy to remember, this now makes no reference to Root, and just reads 'Back to', in line with Lightcurrent's use on his Hub pages. It's simple and to the point, and the use of a template means we can change the exact text or appearance on all pages that use in should we wish to, just by editing the template. I was impressed when someone created the {{rootpage}} template, which automatically adds the category Root page in at the bottom of the page. --Lindosland 16:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is good!--Light current 16:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I think we are getting close to making this official policy. I suggest we now put the two templates into use on more pages, starting with Electronics and see how it works out.

I've made a start on Electronics. Yes, it was a nighmare, but the scheme is working well. I've put in a lot of back-links and started Branch page lists but there's much more to do. I've done the same on Mormonism and its pages, so hopefully people will now get the idea and continue the sorting process. I reckon allowing just one backlink works really well.

That work has really highlighted the way in which page linking can be simplified by going to two or more levels of root pages. It also made me think that perhaps an automated list of branch pages at the start of the article on the RHS in a box would be nice. It would not complicate things because it need only contain ten or twenty links now. --Lindosland 18:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lindosland, Im a bit uneasy about a root page having its own root page. Are these two pages always heirarchical> and is it the same as my hub/sub hub idea. Im not clear- can you explain?--Light current 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happier with it than I was. As I explained somewhere in my long epistles above, I became happier with it when I realised it would not spoil the idea of a 'base' for editing so long as only one back-link was allowed, ie one Root page for a page. I also got happier with it when I adopted your 'back to' so that I didn't have to say 'this is a rootpage' followed by 'back to rootpage' at the top of an article, which sounded confusing. Yes, it's like your hub and sub-hub, but more general, in that you don't have to decide what is the hub and what is the sub-hub in advance. Having two main levels on Electronics certainly helps, and I then backlinked Electronic to Electrical Engineering (mistake perhaps!). Hierarchical? I don't think that means anything, as I've explained, unless you say hierarchical in terms of what. I'm settling for recommending backlinking if there seems to be an obvious choice of page. I came across a good example of how 'hierarchy' isn't it, in Electronic noise and White noise and Pink noise which you had put on the Electronics hub, but I thought were more associated with Noise, a page which I had re-organised earlier, since 'noise' is not primarily electronic. I think I altered a couple of them, but in the end some of this has to be arbitrary. Whatever you do, I reckon it's going to help a lot in making sense of big topics. I see for example that there are pages on Semiconductor and Semiconductor device and probably Solid state device, and once you start to associate them you start to see what comes first and what to merge, and what groups together most naturally --Lindosland 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thinking.....--Light current 01:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, 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 or 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)

The root page proposal will be a radical change in the Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages's amorphous structure, where every article is a root, is not a liability but an asset. In fact, surfing Misplaced Pages 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... 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Portal page.

If I don't convince you, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electronics, and keep a list of relevant articles there.

Articles are the main organizing structure of Misplaced Pages

One of the most enjoyable things about reading Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Roots vs. dabs

I like the idea of root pages. Ambiguous names rarely come about by accident, and we ought to tell the story of how they originate. At the same time, we need good old disambiguation. The encyclopedia would just break down without them. We need a good way to combine root pages and dabs, without the one competing with the other. --Smack (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, they are totally different. The Root page concept is about ordering pages according to semantics(which topic 'includes' which) for easy navigation and coordinated editing, using a special linking method. Disambiguation is for totally different meanings of the same word. This point has come up again and again. Please have a go at navigating around Electronics or Noise and I think you will grasp what this is about. --Lindosland 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks great while you have only one root page and one person using the schema. But what will happen when computing people try to include analog multiplier into their hierarchy, the music people try to link audio filter in theirs, and the career counseling guys try to put electronics as a career in theirs? Or when the image processing people get around to edit the article on noise in TV images?

Once more, the universe is not a tree, nor is knowledge. A tree-like picture of either would be misleading and confining. And I still don't see how this scheme can possibly work in the Misplaced Pages context. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I derect interested parties to the main discussion on this subject at the talk page for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electronics. THanks.--Light current 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This proposal will affect the whole of wikipedia, not just Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Electronics; and the main objections (such as clash between different subjects) are more likely to come from outside. So methinks that the discussion must be carried out here, not there. Jorge Stolfi 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer just about Lindoslands suggestion but about how large articles might be organised. Since Electronics was the most appropriate guinea pig in this experiment, it is only fitting that discussion is carried out there. Otherwise, there will be two discussions needing twice the amount of user input, or lack of communucation. Neither of these is desirable.--Light current 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jorge, I have realised these difficulties, but still feel there are bigadvantages in 'attaching' pages to a root. The answer to 'what happens when computer people try to link analog multiplier into their area is that they get a jolt - it is already taken! This causes them to look up Root page and get some advice. They might then, I suggest, make their own page multiplier (computing) or whatever with the slant on analog computers, linked via 'see also' to Analog multiplier in Electronics. This is what happens already in many cases, but often without each party even realising that the other article exists. Thus I have attached Optoelectronics to Electronics, but would leave Photoelectrics elsewhere, with its more fundamental slant. I would even suggest that articles might be created to 'complete the set' around a Root page, even if they just contained lists of 'long range' links to other fields. Like LightCurrent I constantly feel the need for a method of easy navigation. Its not hierarchy, by the way. As someone pointed out, its semantics - meronymy and holonymy, a matter of 'inclusivity'! --Lindosland 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lindosland, they get a jolt, it's taken is not an answer, it is THE problem. In Misplaced Pages, a person (or a group, like the editors of WP:WPE) cannot assume that he "owns" an article just because he was the first to "claim" it. (One could say that it's actually the opposite: the "owner" is the person who made the last edit, and his "ownership right" expires with the next edit.)

I would say that your problem is not lack of means, but excess of desires. When you wish for "an easy way to navigate around the electronics pages", you have already assumed that (1) "electronics" is a well-defined category (every article either is in it, or not in it), and (2) there are readers for whom navigating within that category is more interesting than navigating out of it. These sttements may seem obvious to you while you are immersed in WP:WPE, but they are quite false in general. First, there is no sharp boundary between electronics and non-electronics. Second, each reader has a differnt area of interest, and looks at the subject in a different perspective. Third, no one reads 50 (or even 5) encyclopedia articles on the same topic, one after the other, as if he were reading a novel. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of textbooks: if you folks at WP:WPE are trying to create a textbook on electronics, you are doing it in the wrong place.

More generally, I am alarmed by the trend towards compartimentalization in Misplaced Pages (of which this proposal is only one facet). While the principle "articles have no owners" seems to be generally understood and respected for individual editors, we seem to be moving towards a situation where certain communities feel that they "own" a certain set of articles, like "electronics", "Brazil", "History of the penny", etc.. The first symptom or cause of this problem is the use of special (and usually exclusive) linking mechanisms to connect all the articles of the set. That is not only useless (for the above reasons) but actually deleterious.

I am coming to believe that navboxes of any kind — even trivial ones like those of History of Brazil or the {{main}} templates — are the devil incarnate. In fact, I dare say that if all the navboxes in Misplaced Pages were deleted overnight, no one would miss them (except the "group owners", of course) and Misplaced Pages would suddenly be ten times better.

The root page proposal, specifically, besides establishing a group, also creates a tree structure within that group. Let me say it again, more emphatically: no matter what the subject, a tree structure is guaranteed to be the wrong structure. (The only exception may be biological species, where the tree is wrong only some of the time; but genetic engineers are already working to "fix" that 8-).

The limitation of tree structures is well known to those of us who still use 20th century operating systems, like Linux or Windows, and their tree-like file systems. In those systems, for instance, one could not store email messages grouped both by sender and by topic: it was either one or the other (and each message could have only one topic). Thus files were always in the wrong directory, and we often had to create two or more copies of the same file just to get around that limitation. (Linux had a thing called symbolic links that solved some of those problems, and created a many more.) Lucky of you who have modern file systems...

Speaking of making copies, the suggestion that the coputer guys create a copy of analog multiplier is an absolute no-no.

By the way, I have heard that there is a new navigation tool in Misplaced Pages called "wikilink". It is said to be extremely powerful: you can use it anywhere in an article, even in the middle of the text, to make any phrase point to any other article. Its inventors claim that wikilinks can be easily combined to make bulleted lists of links, trees of links, and even two-dimensional arrays of links. Sounds too good to be true...

The main disadvantage of this tool, it seems, is that it occupies zero screen space, so it is nowhere as eye-catching as a navbox. It seems that only those readers who actually look at a paragraph, bullet list, or figure caption will notice the wikilinks contained therein; thus editors may be forced to put wikilinks like perverb in those parts of the article which are likely to be read by readers who may be interested in perverbs. Another disadvantage is that the removal of a navbox leaves a conspicuous empty space at the top right corner of an article, with is likely to get vandalized by the insertion of a nice picture or map. (Some editors have also complained that wikilinks tend to allow the reader to jump to articles he is interested in, instead of those that the editors want him to read.)

Nevertheless, in spite of those problems, I would say that wikilinks are a great improvement over all their successors. I wonder whether they will ever become popular with editors.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jorg Stolfil: I understand your point of view, and support it to some extent, but I do not think you quite understand mine, and you mis-represent what I have said. I did not, for example, propose making a copy of Analog multiplier, I proposed a solution involving a pair of articles with different 'slants' as I find is often already done.

I have said over and over again that Encyclopedic articles are not hierarchical in any one dimension, but they do have semantic relationships and there is no doubting that many fields like Electronics 'include' (Holonymy) many topics. Like it or not we live in a world of compartments, and I wonder if you think Universities could function better if they had no departments and no courses like electronics, biology, etc and students just chose their mix. The problem of course is that without compartments you have no lab facilities, no close interactions between like minds, no peer review.

That said, you should know that I am deeply involved in Genetics and Evolutionary theory, and a keen supporter of E. O. Wilson who proposes the idea of Consilience (I went to his lecture on it). I also understand the problems of biological classification (cladism), where a similar problem resists easy solution. I hate the way people are categorised as engineer, biologist etc, but I do not oppose them working together in groups under such a heading. What all this leads me to conclude is that compartmentalisation suits control, keeping order, and team work. Lack of these things opens things up, but with the danger of anarchy. As with everything in life, we seem to need a balance of the two.

No, of course Misplaced Pages articles are not 'owned', but in practice things have, as you commented, tended to go that way with groups watching over articles. I suggest that it is this that makes Misplaced Pages work as well as it is doing. Is it not the case that the freedom you support clashes with the NPOV rule, and it's the 'peer review' operating on pages that 'forces' NPOV?

I confess this is not simple, but I think you should give more weight to the editing problems. Coordinated editing produces good pages. You can see that all over Misplaced Pages, and you can also see disjointed articles with wrong ideas - and they are usually the ones with a blank talk page. On the user side you say that no one reads through fifty articles on one topic, but take away the exageration and I suggest that they do indeed read several. I gave you a good example in Semantics. Try sorting out in your head the subtle meanings of homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, meronymy and holonymy (a list given on this page by a contributor) and then tell me that a branchlist such as I would put on each of those pages would not be a huge help! It also occurs to me that I have looked through many many pages of Genetics where experts have put up so much detailed stuff that I Misplaced Pages starts to take on a new role - as a teaching tool that is bang up to date. You would need access to a library full of journals to get at some of the information there, as it has yet to get into the textbooks, and this is going to be the case with many other fields too, including Electronics. Misplaced Pages doesn't have to stay like other encyclopedias, I reckon its soon going to be 'the one'. I read that many people already use it constantly in their work.

I don't want to push these ideas through if they are not right, and I am beginning to wish I'd never proposed them, as they turned out to involve a lot more thought than I had expected, but the more I look into it the more I feel that I've raised some very relevant issues, which it is good to have discussed here. Regards --Lindosland 11:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that discussion should be kept here. Electronics is by no means the most relevant article to demonstrate on, there are thousands, and yes, this does affect the whole of Misplaced Pages. --Lindosland 11:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding {{backlink}}

I was looking up some information regarding Motion capture today, and I happened upon the {{backlink}} template. I didn't know anything about this "Root page" project, so I hope that my opinion will be valuable as an outside view.

My first thought when I visited the page was "What the heck?" The template made no sense to me. I had gotten to the Motion capture page from Google, so seeing the words "Back to..." at the top was somewhat jarring. I was not interested in general Animation topics, and if I were, I would've just searched Misplaced Pages for them.

I feel very strongly that this template disrupts the overall Wiki structure and experience; it is counterintuitive based on the way I browse. I believe myself and many others do not browse in a linear fashion, rather, I skip from one article to another, sometimes searching, sometimes using bookmarks, sometimes clicking links. Saying "back to" only makes sense when you've arrived at an article from the root page, something I would speculate as being a rare occurrence due to the above statement.

I don't think that having a link back to the root article is entirely out of place, but I also don't think it should be placed at the top of the article. I believe the most appropriate place to put the link would be in the See also section. ~MDD4696 01:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)