Honestly the Wiki has WAY too MANY Categories/Sub Categories for even an experienced user to do editing.
I think we need to get back to Basics, but that is just me a little ole Wiki contributor
The existing threads in the Wiki forum relating to the categories make it clear that the categories were subdivided because the category-tree suffered from "the basics", leaving many category pages way too long, making it impossible to navigate by the categories to find a page with the desired type of information.
As it is now, the category-tree
- is no longer fragmented,
- is structured according to categories one normally encounters in life,
- is uniform in the presentation of the category-pages, and
- provides lists short enough that a Wiki-visitor can quickly determine if their desired page exists or does not exist in a particular category.
For Wiki editors' convenience, and for anyone's navigational convenience, in each state's primary category, is a Wiki article named "Standardized Categories for (state)" which lists all of the standardized categories for that state, with each name conveniently wrapped with square-brackets, so that an editor can simply copy-paste the desired categories into their article(s). For each category, there is also a "Related-Changes" link, so that any interested person can click the link and see a list of changes that relate to that corresponding category.
I appreciate your conscientiousness in wanting to apply the correct categories to any article you edit, and your desire for convenience when doing so. At the same time, the category-tree must be useful in helping to narrow the breadth of articles a particular category contains; otherwise, we return to the same problem we had before, when categories were too large.
It might make more sense to have a conversation about categories in one of the existing threads/discussions, so that those conversations all stay together, and so that previous conversation is ready and relevant to current discussion.
Do we really need Category edits and Template changes every day ??
- The category-tree project was completed last year. Some pages need their categories updated because content has been updated. That's just the way the Wiki works.
The InfoBox template project (also discussed in an earlier thread) is now moving from the testing phase into the implementation phase. It will be completed as soon as possible, and involves a lot fewer Wiki-pages than the category-project did. Please be patient.
- As explained in earlier threads, if you wish to see Recent Changes without the changes that I make, you can do so very easily, by filtering out the "minor" changes.
Here's the direct link that you can bookmark: Recent Changes (not minor)
- You can filter even more by also only seeing the main name-space, and not the category-space or template-space. This way, when template or categories are created or edited, you won't see it.
The direct link that you can bookmark is: Recent Changes (not minor, in Main namespace only)
I [IMHO] feel we lost sight of the RRDB vs Wiki when folks found out how to Link the actual RRDB Data to display in the Wiki, just post the URL to the RRDB if folks want to compare the difference in the data
If the Wiki extensions were used more often, then it would be easy to compare DB data to Wiki data because both would be displayed in the Wiki-page. Otherwise, any comparison between Wiki data and DB data involves jumping back and forth between the DB and Wiki pages, which makes comparisons more difficult.
Another project to improve navigation by adding "Return to DB and Wiki page links" onto every Wiki page has been going on for several years as well. It requires visiting and likely editing every Wiki page. When that project is done, navigation between DB and Wiki will be consistently easy. Of course, when anything in the DB gets renamed, the "Return to" links must be updated. (All discussed in an earlier thread about DB-Wiki disconnections.)
BTW this whole thing began, because the RRDB didn't explicitely indicate the DOA status, however the DB Admin had put it in the notes.
It began because the Wiki page's category was updated before the DB was properly deprecated.
Someone other than you also noticed the narrative comment on the DB page and submitted a DB-deprecation request 2 days before you changed the Wiki page's category.
As you know, from the Wiki-edit comments that we both posted in the Wiki, I reverted your change to maintain synchronization with the DB, and you deprecated the Wiki page because you knew the TRS was dead. Difference being, I was waiting for the DB to be updated, and you weren't.
- 2017-05-22 23:50 QDP2012 used Template:Infobox_TRS_TypeII_US_Pub
- 2017-05-23 07:28 Ecps92 (no comment)
- 2017-05-23 12:45 QDP2012 updated categories
- 2017-05-23 12:45 QDP2012 added "Return to" link(s) to DB and Wiki pages
- 2017-05-24 07:19 Ecps92 It is DEAD - has been since atleast 2011/2012
- 2017-05-24 13:33 QDP2012 Thanks for the update, but please get the TRS deprecated in the DB first, so that the DB and Wiki stay synchronized. Thanks!
- 2017-05-24 13:34 QDP2012 (no comment)
- 2017-05-25 08:10 Ecps92 Stop undoing edits, until you enable Private Messages
- 2017-05-26 13:38 QDP2012 used Template:Infobox_TRS_TypeII_US_Pub_Dep
Staying on topic,
The issue being discussed here is whether or not a Wiki-page should be formally deprecated before the DB is formally deprecated, OR whether the Wiki-page deprecation should wait until the DB is properly deprecated, for continuity.
<repeat-myself>A narrative-note should be used in the Wiki prior to official deprecation in the DB, as explained in earlier posts.</repeat>
We also are not discussing whether or not a DBA did or did not do their job. That's a different conversation with different people (the DBAs and Lead DBA, etc.) for a different thread. (I am sure you realize that if a DBA had complete the DB-request and deprecated the TRS before you changed the Wiki page's category, we would not have had any part of this conversation, and you would not have experienced your frustration(s).)
Which opens up the whole Deprecrated topic [Not TRS related] of one persons interpretation of no longer used. Just because you as a Scannist have not heard it in awhile doesn't mean it is not in the Radios
I absolutely agree, and am glad you pointed this out clearly, for everyone's benefit. Inactivity is not the same as deprecation. Notes about inactivity can be added to an appropriate Wiki page. Deprecation should be submitted to the DB.
..
- 2017-05-25 08:15 - ecps92 started this thread because my PMs are restricted to admins/mods only.
...
Which should be addressed, if your going to Edit and Undo other folks work, communicate with them, so you need to enable PM's from us lowly contributors
As mentioned earlier in this post, the comments we both placed and saw in the Wiki-edits were clear about why we each made changes. Our reasons have not changed since we made the edits. This thread has not added clarity on why the edits were made, and neither would PMs. This thread's discussion on how the DB and Wiki relate, and what action should precede another is really at the heart of what happened, and is a procedure-related discussion which should take place in the Forums so that the Wiki Admins and Wiki community can comment. The issues here are larger than two people individually.
Thanks again for your time and effort with the Wiki. Again, I'm not trying to create problems or stress for you or anyone else in our Wiki community. I am trying to make the improvements mentioned earlier in this thread.
Have a great day,