Wikipedia talk:Browse/Archive 2

The structure of this page
This page's layout is important. To make it clear, it is not written from any intentional point of view, instead it is an overview of the category structure used on Wikipedia. The eight main categories (Culture, Geography, ...) are the ones used on the Main Page. These are designed to provide a backbone for the category system and consensus for these eight categories was reached back in September 2004. It is now July 2024, which means they haven't changed for a while. Since they haven't changed (and they have been protected from changing), the category system subcategorizes articles and categories under one or more of these eight primary categories. This page, implemented in late November 2004, builds on these categories and provides links to the major subcategories contained within. So while suggestions to re-arrange subcategories are welcome (and minor changes have been made to these), the changing of the eight main categories are not appropriate because of their importance. Again, They are the backbones of the category infrastructure, which categorizes the articles on Wikpedia. It would be very disruptive if they were to change. To change them would require the mass re-categorization of countless articles. So, please don't change the eight main categories, as they are like that for a reason and that is why the recent attempt at changing science to nature is unacceptable. Also, the category system is a network, not a tree. Articles can have more than one category and categories can belong to more than one category, that is why there is some crossover between the different categories. Norman Rogers\talk 23:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The page is too long and overloaded. It should to be redesigned and shortened. We have duplicated entries on the page. It is bad. We don't need overlapping categories on the page. One of overlapping categories should be removed. Please, lets be more serious to the page. I can't recive the reason, than the page was not changed for a long time and then it should not to be changed. Conan 09:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As somebody who participated in the discussions before the implementation of the current layout, I agree with Norm, please provide a sample of how you think your layout should be arranged as a subpage of your talk page, say: User talk:Conan/Browse and we can discuss the changes and come to a consensus (this is what was done here in the past). As Norm points out, unless you a making minor tweaks, this is a major change and needs to be co-ordinated across several pages (such as the browsebar on the main page, the Category:Categories  page, other categories and templates.  We aren't saying this is set in stone, but because of it's central importance in browsing Wikipedia, the onus should be on the user to propose a new structure which we can all come to a consensus on before making such a major structural change.  Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 11:15, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can someone point me at the discussion over the eight main categories that happened a year ago? I can't believe I'm the only person to whom the inclusion of "Mathematics" seems bizarre. -- Danny Yee 07:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to replace some invaluable links

 * 1) remove from Geography: Antarctica, Landforms, Subterranea, Villages

Object/Disagree.
 * Antarctica - since this is a continent, I cannot see why this is deemed unnecessary or non valuable. Some countries are even claiming parts of it (but not the US).
 * Landforms are standard geographical features.
 * Category:Subterranean features are also part of our Earth Ancheta Wis 11:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't propose to remove this articles from Wikipedia at all. Or to remove from some category. I just say, than this articles are useless in this page only. If somebody is interesting in Antarctica, Landforms, Subterranea could use links like geography, continents, Earth. Conan 14:30, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, invaluable means priceless, in other words, so valuable that they can't be bought, as if they were really good links, in this case, not useless, not bad at all. I understood what you meant by unvaluable, anyway. Ancheta Wis 22:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Conan 09:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Proposal Browse/Reduced Conan 10:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics a top level category?
I'm NOT probably more fond of mathematics than most people - I did four years of it at university, including some graduate courses - but I just can't see that it deserves a place as a top level category alongside "Science" and "Technology". -- Danny Yee 07:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It almost got pushed down because of a lack of topic-specific portals, but Oleg pushed back, and rightly so. The knowledge contained in the Math pages is significant.  Certainly more so than the extremely large volume of "knowledge" we currently carry about mass-media entertainment. -- Fplay 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong alongside science, but as a sub-category of it. Go for it! 19:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to portals, not categories?
Hi, I'm wondering what you all think about Browse section like that of the German wikipedia, in which they link to the portals, not the categories themselves. On the main page there is a "Portale" section which has links to different portals on the wikipedia - see for the mathematics one. I see that the english wikipedia also has some good looking portals, but they are on the bottom of the page, and are not categorized. I personally think that a link to the portal is much more helpful than a simple link to the category, since the category is usually a mess of articles and subcategories, while the portals are thought-out, organized pages that present what wikipedia has to offer in a much more accessible format. Right now of course, not all of the links on the Browse page have portals, but before I start working on it, what do you think? --Spangineer &#8734; 23:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The German wikipedia has switched to a namespace, Portal:Mathematik, so your link is broken. It's an interesting idea, but you know that you can add text to a category page that is thought-out and organized?  I'm not sure if the Portal: namespace has special page handling. -- Skierpage 09:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Computer science & Computing at this level?
Computer science is considered a subcategory of Computing (on Wikipedia), yet Computer science is listed under Mathematics and Computing is listed under Technology. Factually, this might be fine, but on a high-level browse page, I think seeing both seemingly similar categories (yet in two different places on the same page) could be confusing for the average reader. Or even for a Computer Scientist... ;-) Thoughts? --Ds13 06:46, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not sure... Computer Science is also a subcategory of Mathematics. Is the distinction between the two subjects well defined?  I'll need to come back to this to take a better look at it.  If computer science is theory and computing is practice, I'd say the links are where they should be.  A user interested in Windows 2000 will look under Technology and then Computing, while someone interested in an inverse parser might be more likely to look under Mathematics... though I'm not sure.  I'll have to think about this one some more. --Spangineer &#8734; 16:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Adding health sciences to science and nature category
I have added health sciences as, currently, categories such as nursing/ dentistry are only able to be accessed from the main page via the very broad category of 'applied science' and then as subcategories of health science. I think this is justified as information science and earth science have their own category. However, I am happy for alternatives to be proposed, or for this to be reverted if people do not agree. For example, nursing can be seen as a social science or even an art rather than science.--Vincej 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Portals box to top?
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to move the portals box to the top of the page. Now it's hidden behind all the categories. It's only a small box and the categories wouldn't be hidden onscreen below it. This could drive some more traffic to the wikiportals, which i think they can really use. Jacoplane 03:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Like this .... Jacoplane 03:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea --MarSch 15:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it too. --Spangineer (háblame)  21:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page blank? Ingoolemo  talk  2005-06-29 02:00:57 (UTC)

Business portal
 Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology Browse Wikipedia &middot; Article overviews &middot; Alphabetical index &middot; Other schemes

There was a suggestion that Business be added to the top categories on the Main Page. One possible way to address this would be to create a business portal, and then list it in the Browse page, which now is accessible from any of the 8 top categories on the Main Page, as above. Ancheta Wis 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I made the suggestion and am not very familiar with the concept of a portal in Wiki. I skimmed the wiki help but didn't find it.  Is it a special Wiki page type or is it simply a name for a type of normal page.  In any event, I would be interested in helping to develop a Business Portal which would I believe would add a lot of value to Wikipedia.  I am starting to hear more talk about using Wikipedia from business people, which I think will be good in the long run.  I would also like to start (or participate in one that already exists) a more detailed conversation about what constitutes advertising, since any discussion about a particular business or product will inevitably run up against the issues of advertising.  In my view it is an advantage for wikipedia to have as much FACT about business and products with a limit on the PROMOTION of the same. Ronreed 18:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As Business is not one of my categories or even articles, all that I can help out in is to suggest that you select a thematic color. When I know that, I can set up the skeleton for the portal, which you can then flesh out as you see fit. So, what color do you favor for the Business Wikiportal? See for example Category:Geography, a very nice combination of Category and Portal. Ancheta Wis 18:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not heard back from you about colors, so I made a wild-guess on the colors and put a prototype for you on category talk:Business]. Have fun. Respond on this page if you are having problems or questions. Ancheta Wis 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be neat to have a business portal, but I don't know how much is needed to support it. Maurreen 19:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maurreen! nice to hear from you! How is the Version 1 team? How are the color choices I guessed on? You can just start pasting in articles NOW. Its ready to receive your choices. Ancheta Wis 19:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC) You can change the colors, as well. Just ask.


 * Hi! Thank you, Ancheta Wis. I like the blue much more than the green.
 * I've never edited a portal before. Are there instructions anywhere?
 * I'm sorry to complain, but the way the boxes are laid out looks a little odd on my screen.
 * The Version 1 team didn't get very far. But sometimes I work on core articles through WP:AID.
 * How are you? Maurreen 20:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC) -- fine here, the first Mourning Dove of the season has had a brood. They flew away already. Ancheta Wis 21:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Duh, I just saw the "Edit" button. Maurreen 20:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maureen, First, the blue comes in a little too light, I would suggest a darker blue, but other than that, I like it, let me know how I can help. I couldn't find the color codes in your example.  I will be glad to help support it, but I'm only just beginning with the WikiWorld.
 * Is it possible to place RSS feeds on Wikipedia. The Economist, Wall Street Jounral and New York Times have excellent business news RSS feeds and they are about as credible as it gets when you're looking for current business and economic news.  Ronreed 03:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I like the suggestion that Economics, Business & Finance could be combined into a portal together for now. They are scattered all around and they make a good set.  --Ronreed 03:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I have instantiated a work-in-process: Wikiportal/Business,Economics,Finance. The available colors can be changed using the ones in Web color, for example. I put in the sections from the Business portal, for now. When the sections are the way you want them, the portal can be released for prime-time. Ancheta Wis 02:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Maurreen 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely, thanks. I will jump on it this weekend.  I hope we can recruit more help. --Ronreed 05:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is already a Business and Economics portal. Is it now possible to have a top level section for Business and Economics. pamri 05:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED??!!
This is an exact copy of what appears on the Main Page! Of what use is it now?--Siva 16:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

June 07, 2005 - DISASTER! Implement the Dewey Decimal System!
While the United States has over 9,000 public libraries, not one person has suggested implimentation of the Dewey Decimal System? While there is no doubt a western influence over the system (see 200s, 800s, 900s), the DDC continues to be used and implemented worldwide. Think of the relevance that wikipedia could then have to actual print libraries!

A wikiversion could make minor adjustments to culturally biased sub-categorizations where necessary, just as many private libraries have chosen to do.

Let's not re-invent the wheel and instead concentrate on making great articles. IMPLEMENT THE DEWEY DECIMAL SYSTEM FOR CATEGORY NAMES!


 * If you want the Dewey Decimal system, you'll find it in the Dewey Decimal System page. We here at Wikipedia allow a number of different top-level categorisation schemes.  My understanding of what the community here wants to achieve for the categories used on the front page is something even more user-friendly than Dewey Decimal.  If you prefer something a little more rigorous, there are many to choose from at [Wikipedia:Category schemes].  I believe the reason none of us have suggested library schemes is because, although they're comprehensive, they're user -friendly just like Unix is, in that both are choosy about who they're friends with :) --TimNelson 12:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments? --Category|Talk 16:03, 06 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copy of Dewey Decimal system moved to Dewey Decimal Classification.


 * If the Dewey Decimal System is so great, why doesn't the U.S. Library of Congress use it ? (see Library of Congress Classification). You may be as surprised as I was, to learn that Wikipedia is flexible enough that we don't have to agree on a particular system. Feel free to label each Special:Categories with the appropriate Dewey Decimal number using the Dewey Decimal System. Other people can add whatever other labels they like. Wiki is flexible to use all categories at the same time. Some discussion at http://CommunityWiki.org/ReserveWiki . --DavidCary 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * LC's classification system was invented before Dewey. Dewey wanted something simpler for the general public. LC is great if you have a vast collection and want really specific classification areas. Dewey can be pretty fine tuned, but each has their place in the Big Picture of Library Science. Cheers - Her Pegship 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)(M.L.I.S.)

It is unnecessary


 * The DDC helps people locate physical books on library shelves and clusters books on similar topics in close proximity on shelves. In an electronically indexed and cross-referenced body of knowledge such as this it is unnecessary and requires a level of indirection that complicates things. Unlike in a physical library there is no difficulty in inserting new documents into locations "between" existing documents, and the use of natural language terms in searching and browsing is sufficient and less arbitrary than assigning numbers to categories. We also do not need to spend effort on maintining the "correct" association between numbers and categories and articles, that would be wasted effort.

DannyStevens 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! Directory is probably based on DDC
Possibly the most relevant categorization on the web?

Arts & Humanities

Business & Economy

Computers & Internet

Education

Entertainment

Government

Health

News & Media

Recreation & Sports

Reference

Regional

Science

Social Science

Society & Culture

--Ink

Proposal for some category changes
Library Science says to use five basic facets to classify things (see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Category_schemes). I suggest that we adopt three of them for some of the major categories, namely Personality (Topic), Time (History), and Space (Geography). Additionally, I suggest that, to achieve simplicity, and avoid scaring non-ontologists (ie. people who don't care about the organisation of knowledge), that we put the top-level headings from Topic alongside History and Geography. As Personality facets, I'd suggest Arts, Science & Technology, Human Systems (aka Social Science), and Religion (these are the traditional four university faculties). You'd end up with this sort of translation:
 * Arts (includes chunks of what's currently listed as culture)
 * Human Systems (includes culture, personal life, and society)
 * Science & Technology (includes Science & Nature, Mathematics (as only one link), and Technology)
 * Religion (includes various links to that)
 * History
 * Geography

I think after a reorganisation link this, there would be a bit of fiddling with the minor categories, but we'd end up with a better overall system.

Also, could we put the portals in with the rest, and mark them with a + or something? And for the major headings (ie. Arts), can we link to all three of the Article, the Category, and the Portal?

Since someone said that we should make mockups of proposals, try this: User:TimNelson/Browse. To forestall discussion, the Religions are those over 1% of the world's population, ordered by size. I've done as little rearrangement of the subcategories as possible, except extracting the ones to create Arts, and seriously compressing Mathematics. Also, if anyone knows how to link to Portals, let me know.

TimNelson (Sat Jun 4 15:01:02 UTC 2005)


 * I too think links to portals would be much more helpful than links to categories. Also, you might consider putting a "more" link at the end of each category that links to a list of topics on that subject; for example, after the religion section, put in a link to List of religions.  That way there's a way to get to virtually any article on wikipedia.  Also, is there a reason you chose that specific order (top to bottom)? I'd personally put arts in the second or third position, and I'd probably include religion as a subcategory of human systems.  But I'm no organization expert.  --Spangineer ( háblame ) 18:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * My choice of ordering was a) according to the library science acronym PMEST, with Personality/Topic first, Space/Geography second, and Time third, and b) in alphabetical order by topic (Arts, Human Systems, Science, Religion -- oops :) ). But see also my comments below about my historical approach.  --TimNelson 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * why would you want to replace mathematics by religion? --MarSch 20:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm approaching it from an historical point of view. In the beginning (of the University), there were only two fields of study, Theology and Philosophy.  Philosophy eventually gave rise, AFAIK, to Arts, Science, and Social Science (which is why you get a Ph.D).  That's why I've put Religion last, even if alphabetically, it comes before Science.  As with everything, it depends on your point of view.  --TimNelson 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to summarise so far, the complains about this proposal are:
 * Where does Religion belong? (Alternate Suggestion; Human Systems)
 * Should we have the same categories in a different order?

More opinions on the above requested. --TimNelson 04:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Conan 08:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reorganised the links in the categories some, since we seem to agree on all the major categories except Religion. I'm still not satisfied with how Human Systems has been done; I think I need to let it percolate for a bit longer. Also, if anyone has any bright ideas for what to call the category I've labelled "Resource Allocation", please let me know. --TimNelson 13:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need to sync with template forks
Template:Main portals and Template:Categories have exactly the same content as the two main parts of this page, except that I'm sure they are slowly diverging. I think the content should be re-synched and those templates simply added to this page, to prevent duplication of effort, and to make sure everyone who's using those tables gets the benefit of all the improvements made to them.

Also, Template:MainPageIntro duplicates the navigation bar at the top of this page. I think a new template should be created so both this page and the main page can be kept in sync. -- Beland 20:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It turns out Eight portals links takes care of the latter. I put it on this page, which resulted in the addition of Philosophy, which is odd in that it doesn't transclude a Wikiportal like the others. -- Beland 05:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * SteveVertigo (SV) points out that the Eight portals links does not include a quick link to the actual list of categories below the portal. I propose augmenting the links bar with a link to a heading ===Subcategories and articles:=== . Since Komencanto has augmented the links with a 9th, it now laps beyond 1 line; thus the link could be named literally "Subcategories and articles:" with little impact to the layout. Also, in case someone wishes to shorten up the layout, then the "Subcategories and articles:" link could be named literally "→" with the heading as above, which would satisfy SV's criticism. If no one else has objections, I will proceed with the changes as above after a wait of a half-day or so. Ancheta Wis 15:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Beland, the 8 portals link needs to also handle the case for the Browse Wikipedia page. What we need is a template which can handle the extra arguments for the Subcats and Articles link for SteVertigo. Since Browse Wikipedia does not really have a place for me to put in a corresponding Subcats and Articles link, I had to fallback to the previous version of the 8-category bar. It will take some extra work to get the 8-portal template working for the Browse Wikipedia case. Komencanto and Elfguy, any other ideas? Ancheta Wis 18:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy with Portal:Browse
Should the portal section here be merged with Portal:Browse? -- Beland 05:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe so, since it was originally placed thare because it was nowhere else. I went ahead and removed it. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 11:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Parallel structure with Portal:Browse and Browse by overview
As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I found the three main topical browse pages - this, Portal:Browse and Browse by overview - extremely confusing. I believe much of my confusion was because they missed a good deal of parallel structure for the entries beneath the main headings. I took some time to add entries to "fill in the blanks," such as adding history by country categories here, but they have been reverted. I've read on more than one occasion that various versions of user guides are "too big." However, I believe this perspective often comes at an unnecessary learning curve price to the novice and intermediate user. Usability should be just as valued a criterion as brevity for navigation aids.

I propose that, whenever possible, these three main topical browse pages have parallel structures in terms of the eight main categories and bottom-level entries - category/portal/article for X - (e.g., Category:Art/Portal:Art/Arts). The use of additional non-main headings should be allowed some flexibility, based on related entries (e.g., "Entertainment" for portals). &mdash; RDF talk 05:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename to "Wikipedia:Browse by category"
Template:Categorybrowsebar has three basically parallel browse pages: Browse, Portal:Browse, and Browse by overview. Their distinguishing browse objects are categories, portals, and articles, respectively. On its discussion page, I proposed Categorybrowsebar directly reflect these distinctions in its wording. On its discussion page, I also proposed Browse by overview be renamed to "Wikipedia:Browse by article." To clarify the meaning of this page, I propose it be renamed to "Wikipedia:Browse by category." &mdash; RDF talk 05:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One year ago, Aug 29 2004 it was indeed named Wikipedia:Browse by category. In the course of time, it got shortened to Wikipedia:Browse. All of this happened by consensus. Before Aug 2004, there was only the WikipediaTOC of articles. When categories became widespread, Browse by category became viable, using the same scheme as for the Articles. It was at that time that the WikipediaTOC was renamed to Wikipedia:Browse by overview. Now that portals are starting to spread, it was only natural that the same outline scheme would appear. Ancheta Wis 02:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Business and Economics
Why isn't Business and Economics one of the top level categories? Pamri &bull; Talk 09:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal life
I believe it is time to deep-six Category:Personal life from the pantheon and promote something more useful like Category:People, which would link to biographies etc. after consolidation with Category:Lists of people. dml 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

New icons on this page
Really nice. Thanks, whomever. Her Pegship 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Born on / Died on date
I suggest that in addition to Birth year and death year categories we have the same for dates. eg Category Oct 21 deaths : Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson etc ljd 12:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FRONT DOOR issues: Owning the cat, page and redirect
This is the FRONT DOOR to Wikipedia for a lot of new users. You guys really need to claim, to some small level, the ownership to the Categories (and their defining pages) you point to. In particular, you need apply some pressure to ensure that the Categories that you directly point to meet some standards.

For instance, should the category have its own description of its scope, or should it just have a catmore that points to a page OF THE SAME NAME. If there are singular/plural issues, then ensure that the redirect is there and points to the correct page.

There were problems, such as: Art/Arts! It was a mess. The only thing that makes sense is to insist that:


 * You guys, in the browsing user interface, consistently use the singular "Art"
 * That the existing page "Arts" get renamed/merged to "Fine art"
 * That Arts then updated to redirect to "Art".


 * "Category:Food and Drink". OK.  No single page corresponds.  It has to point to Food and the Food page has to point to Drink in its opening paragraph or "See Also" section.  The problem was that "Food and Drink" was redirected to "Cuisine".  I fix that.  We probably should mark the talk pages of everything that Browse points to with a warning:  Make sure that that cat/page/redir conforms to our standards.


 * "Movments" vs. "Cultural Movements". Of course, the traveral should be a direct hit, not a visit to a disambiguaation page.  What to do?  Ether you guys say "Cultural Movements" or we move the pages around.  I do not care which.
 * I changed the UI to "Cultural movements". If you want it to be "Movements", you shove the current "Movement" stuff out of the way and claim ownership of it. Do not waste the user's time with multiple terms for one concept. -- Fplay 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

etc.

All these legacy problems have to get sorted out with almost no exceptions. The user should not have to be bothered with all of this hair-spliting that has occurred in the past. -- Fplay 20:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Beyond the Top 8
If you look at Category:Top 8, and then at Browse, you will see that Art, Philosophy, Religion and Nature now also get top billing. Is this what we really want? If those are really the only other Big Subjects for an encyclopedia, then fine, but I sense a slippery slope here. We should try harder to define the boundary line. How did the "Top 8" come about? Is anyone trying to provide leadership on the Browse UI? -- Fplay 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See History of Wikipedia. The top 8 stabilized in Nov 2004 and stayed that way until recently. The reasoning was that 8 is at the upper edge of our digit span. Beyond that our brains start to chunk items together.


 * Most people have a digit span of 6. That is why the phone company determined that people best remember 6 digit phone numbers, but even a phone number grew to 7 digits, etc. When a number of choices gets unmanageable, then there is a reaction, such as the one you are manifesting now. On a related note, no juggler has ever put more that 6 balls in the air at the same time (digit span of 6) i.e., 6 unknowns appear to be our limit.


 * The top categories were fewer at one time, but 8 seemed to be a reasonable compromise. In Summer 2004 User:Eloquence put forth the concept of a select number of choices; I would call him the leader on this feature of the encyclopedia. But he has not usually maintained the browse bar, other than the initial version back in Summer 2004. Originally, the Main Page had the articles currently in Browse by Overview; we didn't have Featured Articles on the Main Page, etc., back then. We really ought to have fewer categories than the top 8 in a browse bar. Perhaps we can have pull-down lists from 6-7 tabs some day. --Ancheta Wis 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Nature" gets a pass because it is in Category:Fundamental . The other three; I sense zealotry.  Feh... -- Fplay 02:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Someone slipped into "Social science" in there. AND I noticed that the made "Geography" a sub-cat of "Social science". Maybe they did that in Grammer school for  "Social studies" but I really do not think that we want to do that here.  "Geography" is in the "Top 8" and does not need anyone else's help to be found. -- Fplay 07:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I´m a german user trying to get an idea about the categories earth sciences and geography. For that I think now, it is a problem in understanding geography as a science. In the german wikipedia there are 35 !Hauptkategorien and your Top8 are much better I think, but how can I force the german Wikis to use such a structure? --Benutzer:Geofriese 15:24, 22.Dezember 2005 (MEZ)

Heuristic and Comp. Sci.
Heuristic is the large category of "Scientif method" etc. Computer Science is part of computer and has a specialize set of heuristics. Comp. Sci. is part of "Computing". It is certainly not part of Nature. If the Comp. Sci. types insist on top-billing, put them in Math or Tech, not Nature. -- Fplay 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Portals moved back to Portal: namespace
The time has come to get the portals in a uniform level of quality. Some of the them were getting stale and the browserbar was becoming a mix of Category: and Portal:. Please work on the problem portals (and the cats and defining pages) until at least the Top 8 (or 10 or 12 or whatever the number is now) are uniform and then re-deploy them all in one fell swoop in some kind of consensus thing. And we still need more work on making sure that the organizatoin of the categories is PLEASING to the new user. I mean, we have a sub-cat of "Humans" under the the Top 8 cat of "People" ?!? Arrrgghhh!!! -- Fplay 06:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the 8 Portals. --Ancheta Wis 10:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What do we want? I know what I want and what the user of Wikipedia:Browse wants: Uniformity for the "Category:Top 8".  Do we want to have the Categories carry the space and graphics and of the Portals?  It is easy to put them back on the Top 8 and let the Top 8 lead the way, but most Categories are lean and mean.  I find it burdensome to have to scroll down (to skip over the portals) to start browsing the categories.  Is just having a link or two to the corresponding portal good enough?  If not, they should all come back to the top (or somewhere in) of the cat or else will would have to make a parallel "portal browsing" strcture.  We already have "Categories:Portals" for a linear list.  Is that good enough? -- Fplay 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The current layout looks fine. I must admit that the Art Portal's offset from the current standard browsebar is a little jarring, but scrolling down a tiny bit is a small thing. The UI look and feel is largely uniform; we were on the same page with hardly any talk between us, which is a very good way to collaborate on edits. Again, well done. --Ancheta Wis 10:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The triumvirate
We need to keep Category, Portal and Overview uniform in navigation. Of course, it would lovely if the Top 10 could be uniform, but we can fight that battle some other day. BTW: I happen to LIKE what Philosophy has done to customize their page to stress the whole East/West thing, but I note that they were not part of the Top 8. -- Fplay 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference is a loaded term...
When I go to a public library and ask for the "Reference" section, that has a very particular meaning that does not include Wikipedia. It is about Atlases and Encyclopedias, the Readers Guide to Current Periodicals and stuff like that. I think that stuff "about" Wikipedia, and other "special" lists like the "unusual articles" list (nose picking and all) should go to their own section. My motivation is to show a level of seriousness on this clost-to-the-front-door page. -- Fplay 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel justified in moving "Unusual" down to the "About Wikipedia" section: it starts with the "Wikipedia:" prefix. The same will be done for anything that goes to Wikipedia: via a redirect. The "featured" stuff is also emphemeal, but the user will forgive that one.  -- Fplay 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nesting tables...
I noticed that the "Reference" column on the right is, like, one pixel higher than the left-hand column because the left-hand column is a nested table. Gross. If it would just do a "td" table data, rather than a whole next table, I bet it would line up. Or maybe we could defeat the padding... -- Fplay 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Indices: Monospace?
I have attempted to unify the style of the indices, but I dropped the monospace. Should we go back to monospace for all indices? Things like "I" are a little narrow. -- Fplay 02:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Note about a contributor with but a single edit.
New user:Biowolf has made a provocative edit on the Browse page. I have encouraged him to branch out if he does not wish this single edit to be reverted by others. --Ancheta Wis 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pointless flags
What is the point of all the flag images on this page? There are 254 images, the page takes ages to load, and the flags serve no purpose whatsover. A clear case of self-indulgence and a disregard for whom the page is supposed to be for, the reader. Alan Pascoe 12:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC) I agree with Alan. The flags over-complicate the section and make it look way too busy. &#91;&#91;User:Harryboyles&#124;&lt;font color=#439539&gt;&#39;&#39;Harryboyles&#39;&#39;&lt;/font&gt;&#91;&#91;User_Talk:Harryboyles&#124;&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]]]] 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Them messy flags
I've just tried (NB tried) to bring some order to the African flags in the Geography section, to see if all the flags there might be laid out less messily. To do so, I used the  templates, but found I had to create a 'null' column in order for something moderately reasonable to appear, i.e.

Africa ...

Unfortunately, however, a side-effect is that the column spacing is irregular. What do people think about this approach? If they favor it, can anyone help fix the status quo? (Once I know what a fix may be, I'll happily format the remaining flags.) Or perhaps they should all be replaced by a link or links to List of countries by continent or the like? Best wishes, David Kernow 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now tried replacing the flags with links to, where X is each of the five main global areas (continents), below a   of each. How about this kind of approach? David Kernow 04:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)