Rustyblade and Aegist Progress in Wiki

[Aegist]

Just thought I would start this thread so we can discuss any changes in general, rather than trying to follow every discussion page in the wiki across numerous articles.

I just deleted all of the articles in the 'Delete' category except the "The Coast Walk (Royal National Park)" because I simply entered the command #REDIRECT [[The Coast Walk, Royal National Park]]

which is obviously the command to redirect. A double redirect simply happens when you redirect to a page which is itself a redirection. I made quite a few of these back before I knew the #REDIRECT command, and made all of my redirection by pressing the 'Move' tab (which maybe only I can see, not sure...) Anyway, now that I know the redirect command, we can have 1000 different article titles all redirecting to the one correct article, rather than having 3 successive redirections like I created in the first few weeks of this game

[rustyblade]

Just worked out the
#REDIRECT [[to this article page]]      (or alternatively)
#REDIRECT [[:Category:to one of these category pages]]
commands myself yesterday (and everybody does have the 'move' button)....

I read your discussion in 'the oaks trail' that talked (along lines of) about also making a page called 'oaks trail' and re-directing to the actual article... That was another 'lightbulb' moment for me as I hadn't even considered that - I think that point should be made more available to 'newbies' reading through the Guidebook.

-The only reason I marked [[The Coast Walk (Royal National Park)]] to be deleted was that [[The Coast walk (Royal National Park)]] was already re-directed to [[The Coast Walk, Royal National Park]]...  I have found using the search box that 'article pages' are NOT case-sensitive, although 'Category Pages' or 'Template Pages' definately are case-sensitive

[rustyblade]

OK - Just went to double check 'article pages' not being case-sensitive....

I was misleading (that is true in the search box) - when a link on a page leads to an 'article page' IT IS CASE-SENSITIVE! 

So it probably is then best to just re-direct everything (unless 100% no pages link to it)

[rustyblade]

Also - I think I have just about finished putting together a system to link every possible page type to others (in meantime - until new system), but require some feedback; if anyone can find any flaws with what I have done so far, please inform me ASAP before I continue doing things the wrong way(possibly!) 

This link is to my personal user page in the Guidebook, I have listed what I have been up to so far:  http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=User:Rustyblade   

Shane (as you know) I suggested that an 'article page' that you made about an area that can be canyoned WITH SUB-CANYONING ARTICLES should instead be a 'category page' - This would not effect the layout of the article, accept for the fact that links to sub-canyons would be automatically displayed at the bottom of the page.  It also would mean that in 'Category:Canyoning' this page wouldn't be displayed in 'articles' but instead above that in categories (when clicked on it will display your article contents and sub-categories).  What do you think of doing it this way?? ?? ?? ?? ??   

I have moved the article page on 'Katoomba Canyons' to 'Category:Katoomba Canyons' as a clear example of this (& re-directed original)....  If you don't think this is a good idea - I will have to make a few changes to section-4.0 of the following page:
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Talk:TDMSKP_Guide_Roadmap   

[Aegist]

The regional categories sounds pretty good. My only concern would be that people may think they are different to articles (because it has 'Category' in front of it). However, the benefits probably outweigh that factor, and people should be able to figure it out easy enough.

I didn't even realise there was an article 'katoomba Canyons' LOL. So that should be fine.

BTW, I removed the Bowens Creek South articles from that same name category because they are about different things (and are a good example of some of the troubles we will no doubt encounter time and time again as things expand).

"Upper Bowens Creek South Branch" is exactly what the name suggest, the upper section to the south branch of bowens creek. "Bowens Creek South Branch" refers to the entire south branch, while there is also an Upper North, and a Lower North Branch...So I expect to make a specific article for each section (because each section represents a good 'Canyoning trip') and then a broader article to cover the entire length of the river/canyon. However the broader article will have a short explanation about the shorter sections, with a link to "See the full article here..." like wikipedia does in many articles:

See for example "Russian" in wikipedia has a section on the Russian Alphabet, but starts with a link to the "Main Article:Russian Alphabet"

Similarly there will be articles about longer things, linking to articles about smaller sections.

[rustyblade]

There actually wasn't an article on 'Katoomba Canyons' I realised as soon as I had posted, so I quickly set up the article and then re-directed to the category of the exact same name.  That wasn't the best example! 

Two much better examples: 
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Royal_National_Park
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Newnes
(category-articles about 'larger things' automatically displaying both sub-category-articles about 'smaller things' AND normal-articles about 'smallest things' that have no further sub-articles)

My thinking was that for the purposes of consistency ANY 'larger area' like Bowens Creek, AND Bowens Creek South Branch - should be 'category pages' like above examples.  Both are 'Guide Articles' about areas that can be canyoned, with links to 'Guide Articles' about 'smaller areas' that can also be canyoned (these links giving more details then 'parent' articles)...  When we finally reach the 'smallest' area (Upper Bowens Creek South Branch) this would be just a normal article page as no more smaller yet areas are likely to be written about.

Let's say for example (I don't know the area) that somebody else wants to write a guide for 'Bowens Creek South Branch' not for canyoning - but for camping - and somebody else writes a guide for rock climbing there aswell.  Currently they would have to go into your article and make a link for their article to be associated with 'the south branch'.  But if 'the south branch' was a category (article still the same), this person would ONLY have to edit their own article by linking to your category-article (auto displayed at bottom of your article).

I agree with your concern about people thinking they are different to articles because of the category infront of it, but if people actually read the Guide Roadmap and/or the Guidebook layout is kept consistent (with good examples like Category:Newnes popping up all over the place) - It wouldn't take long at all for the majority to work it out!!?!

[rustyblade]

A separated explanation for Category:Change To Same Name Category(to avoid confusion)
Let's say I stumbled across an article about walking along the cliffs at Maroubra Beach exploring the caves.  At the bottom of this article where it shows all of the 'parent' categories I see that one of the 'parents' is Category:Maroubra Beach - but the category is showing up red, meaning that it doesn't yet exist.  Next I do a search for Maroubra Beach and find out that there is a Guide 'Article Page' for surfing at this beach. 

Let's say i'm going out and don't have the time to setup the Category:Maroubra Beach (which is needed) and move all the text to it from the 'article page', and re-direct the article page also. Instead I quickly type the following code at the bottom of the 'Article Page': [[Category:Change To Same Name Category]]  - this page will now automatically be displayed in that category...  Anybody else who looks into this 'change to same name category' category will know that the 'article page' on Maroubra Beach needs to be moved to a category of the same name - Either they can move it over, or I will when I return home (that is IF I remember to!!!)

The following categories also flag 'need to do' stuff to other Guidebook users (in the same way - all found also in Category:TDMSKP Operations):
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:Pages_With_Template-Stub
*shows all pages that have the Template:Stub (article requires expanding)
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:Completed_Templates
*shows completed Guide Article Templates
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:Page_To_Be_Locked_Requests
*shows pages that are on request to be locked from further editing as they are believed to be spot on
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:DELETE
*shows pages that are on request for deletion by admin (admin double checks first)
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:Help_Link_Any_Page_Templates
*shows all pages that contain any 'help link templates' so that anyone who understands how to use them can help the users by linking it all for them..
**Like me, that is once we have agreed on a workable way to link every possible page to every possible other related page   

[Aegist]

You may have noticed I started working through your revisions of the roadmap yesterday. I copied your version over the one that was up, and started editing it from the beginning, trying to bring it up to date with all of the changes that will be coming in.

One of the biggest problems I am encountering though, is that it is simply becoming too confusing. While having a well set out category system has its benefits, by and large the most important thing is that anyone can just come into the system and add pages without being confused by the setup.

Simplicity is king in this game.

As for categories for regions, i really think that that is not the way to go. A category is a distinctly different type of page to an article page. I think there should be a category:Newnes, and in that category should be a one line description of what the are a 'Newnes' covers, and a link to the article about Newnes (as in wikipedia "Main Article: Newnes")

A category doesn't have to be Blue text in order for it to function as a category. By adding two or three articles to a category, even if you don't edit the text in that category (thus any text hyperlinked to that category will still appear red) the articles within the category will still be displayed. So it will work regardless.

[rustyblade]

I totally agree with comment 'simplicity is king in this game' - that's why I attempted putting together those 'help link any page templates'. My thinking was that instead of having both 'category' and 'main article', just have one page whenever possible! >> >> >>

But I do get what you're saying! So, in the case of 'General Regions' like Newnes it should be a normal 'article page', the article page should though have the code at bottom of the linking to [[Category:Newnes]] so that the main article is visible to anyone looking through 'General Regions' for interesting articles.  The article within Newnes on 'Firefly Canyon' will be visible from Category Newnes, but not article!!!

The same with Guide Articles, all normal article pages - but any article like Upper Bowens Creek South Branch could (optionally) be placed into a separate Category:Bowens Creek South Branch (for example) which would show all of the articles to someone looking through 'General Regions' for interesting articles!

*A category like the 'Blue Mountains' doesn't have to be blue for users to view all articles with the Blue Mountains - But it does have to be blue for Blue Mountains to be visible within 'New South Wales'......

**So basically users just concern themselves with filling the article up with lots of information, and OPTIONALLY can create a separate category if that applies and if they understand how to do so...  Someone (like me again) can come along at a later date and 'Create the Categories' and link them to 'BIGGER Categories'.......

[rustyblade]

In the case of sports groups like 'Water Sports' do you think anybody will write detailed 'article pages' about these?? ?? ??  If not, then maybe just a quick description at the top of the 'category page' would be enough?? ?? ??

And last question is about National Parks (see National Parks in NSW)
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:National_Parks_in_NSW
Royal National Park is (at the moment) a 'category page', and when you are browsing through Category:National Parks in NSW - Royal NP (and others) are displayed separately from the articles about venues within the National Parks (which are in bottom section)...
If there was both a 'category' and 'main article' for Royal National Park - then National Parks in NSW would display the 'Parks' and 'smaller venues' alltogether....  Do you think that specific National Parks should ONLY BE ARTICLE PAGES also???

[Aegist]

But I do get what you're saying! So, in the case of 'General Regions' like Newnes it should be a normal 'article page', the article page should though have the code at bottom of the linking to [[Category:Newnes]] so that the main article is visible to anyone looking through 'General Regions' for interesting articles.  The article within Newnes on 'Firefly Canyon' will be visible from Category Newnes, but not article!!!

That's right. The article about Newnes is about Newnes - ideally it will have a few links to "Popular Canyons in the area" and "popular walks in the area" in the article for instance, but for someone to see everything in the area, they will need to go to the Newnes category.

Remember, this is just a temporary setup. The long term goal is still to make a database driven - map based system where people can simply look at a region and see all of the options

A category like the 'Blue Mountains' doesn't have to be blue for users to view all articles with the Blue Mountains - But it does have to be blue for Blue Mountains to be visible within 'New South Wales'......

OK, I didn't realise that.

**So basically users just concern themselves with filling the article up with lots of information, and OPTIONALLY can create a separate category if that applies and if they understand how to do so...  Someone (like me again) can come along at a later date and 'Create the Categories' and link them to 'BIGGER Categories'.......

Yep. The important thing is that people feel like creating an article is an easy thing to do. Most - the vast vast vast majority of - people will find the articles 1. Through Google, then 2. Through the inhouse search tool.

Browsing through the categories will actually be the least used method of finding articles, so it really isn't that crucial. It is a great feature to have, but until we can have something mind blowinginly brilliant like a completely interactive map system, it won't be used too much.

That is why the focus at this stage should really be on simply adding more and more articles - more articles = more content for Google, = more people finding TDMSKP and helping it to grow. So, the best thing I think that can be done at this point is still just adding information articles about the various sports and venues from wikipedia (and then adjusting them for TDMSKP context), and extending from those articles into other areas.

Even short, not very helpful articles, can really help.

For example, we don't even have an article on Uluru at the moment. How hard is it to create an article "Uluru is a large rock in the middle of Australia which is very attractive to tourists" just to get the ball rolling. Now there is content there which can be improved (taking the scary bit out of the equation - the 'Create a page' step.)

If we start building it this way, with a mind towards structure, then the structure will build itself reasonably easily I think.

[Aegist]

In the case of sports groups like 'Water Sports' do you think anybody will write detailed 'article pages' about these?? ?? ??  If not, then maybe just a quick description at the top of the 'category page' would be enough?? ?? ??

And last question is about National Parks (see National Parks in NSW)
http://tdmskp.com.au/guide/index.php?title=Category:National_Parks_in_NSW
Royal National Park is (at the moment) a 'category page', and when you are browsing through Category:National Parks in NSW - Royal NP (and others) are displayed separately from the articles about venues within the National Parks (which are in bottom section)...
If there was both a 'category' and 'main article' for Royal National Parks - then National Parks in NSW would display the 'Parks' and 'smaller venues' alltogether....  Do you think that specific National Parks should ONLY BE ARTICLE PAGES also???

I think that water sports can have an article on it, and a brief description at the top of the category page, or either one alone. I don't think it matters too much either way, and it is easier to just let it go and see what happens.

This needs to be a community based project, and if something doesn't get added, then the community probably doesn't care. If it does, then leave it. We don't need to have hard and fast rules about everything.

As for national parks, a similar sentiment to what I just expressed can be applied, but a more specific answer is, IMO - have both. Article and category, because national parks do cover large regions, and they are article worthy.

[rustyblade]

Ok I will change my few examples back to 'main articles', start 'starting' more articles, and will update the 'help link any page templates' to reflect what you have just said......(unless you were wanting to do that?)

But will also 'create' (separate) categories for some of the main 'general regions' as I personally don't search for things in google and I don't know the names of places to just type into the search bar - I want to look at General Regions near me to get ideas about things to do in my spare time!!!

Cool - Thanks for those replies mate!!! 

[Aegist]

Cool - Thanks for those replies mate!!! 

No, thank you for being so eager to help, and putting up with my opinions

Remember, you don't really have to defer everything to me. If you are convinced that your way is better, you can just go and do it I will continue to do my best to improve this guide, but I don't plan on being the policeman of it forever...