French
DeutschTemplate talk:Scenic Rim Region
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Just towns
[edit]I was intending for this (and Template:Lockyer Valley Region) to be just for towns, with the category and lga article containing a complete list of places. The thinking was that many of the localities just are not significant enough to be listed in a navbox. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- To my mind, the purpose of a navbox is to help a reader find the article for some place they think may be in the Scenic Rim Region. It's presumably significant to them. By listing all of them, they either find the article they want or they see a red link and know there isn't an article or don't see the place name at all, suggesting that perhaps it is not in the Scenic Rim Region after all. I think the risk of a subset is they assume there isn't an article because they don't see it listed in the navbox. I think the risk of omitting the redlinks is that nobody thinks to add them when the article is created; this way they add themselves automagically. And redlinks are an invitation to create articles (i.e. stigmergic). Kerry (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just considering the WP:NAVBOX guidelines which suggest navboxes should include articles that refer to each other. When I said significance above I probably meant more that they aren't directly related to each other. For example, you would be unlikely to see Wonglepong mentioned on Aratula or Mount Walker in the see also section of Binna Burra. Its also recommended to avoid large templates which appear overly busy (like the Toowoomba Regional turned out to be) and that an alphabetical list with no logical grouping serves no purposes greater than categories. I wouldn't of considered risk as a factor but I know where you are coming from. I'm not overly concerned with what might be suggested or any impressions which could be gathered. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think they necessarily do refer to each by the fact they're in the same local government area; unless you've got somewhere incredibly large, they're going to have overlapping historical segments, and they're a far easier means of finding and moving between extremely related articles than categories are. By making random editorial calls as to which towns are notable enough to be mentioned in navboxes, we make unhelpful assumptions of what readers are looking for, and make other towns unnecessarily hard to find (e.g. when I went through the Victorian navboxes there were some quite significant towns that someone who probably had no ties to the area left off entirely). It's much more useful to just list them all and let readers find them all. And about redlinks - what Kerry said. Cutting off redlinks means that if someone creates an article and doesn't know about the template (and they can't use the Whatlinkshere because the redlink is gone), it just gets left out for years (as again happened in Victoria). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really their inclusion into the Scenic Rim region is what is arbitrary. That only came about because of amalgamations for cost saving purposes. The history and development of Binna Burra and Tamborine in the east is quite different to say the Boonah area. I had created a specific set of towns in the area, according to Queensland Place Names, so it wasn't random. Repeating what is in the Scenic Rim region category serves no purpose. Note that "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links". I never suggested to not include redlinks, just that a subset of prominent places or towns is more aligned with our guideline. I just think we can do a little better than an alphabetical list of all places for each lga. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- How is the alternative better? It provides less information by not mentioning towns according to editorial judgment; I'm not sure how referring to Queensland Place Names makes them less random? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Really their inclusion into the Scenic Rim region is what is arbitrary. That only came about because of amalgamations for cost saving purposes. The history and development of Binna Burra and Tamborine in the east is quite different to say the Boonah area. I had created a specific set of towns in the area, according to Queensland Place Names, so it wasn't random. Repeating what is in the Scenic Rim region category serves no purpose. Note that "Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links". I never suggested to not include redlinks, just that a subset of prominent places or towns is more aligned with our guideline. I just think we can do a little better than an alphabetical list of all places for each lga. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think they necessarily do refer to each by the fact they're in the same local government area; unless you've got somewhere incredibly large, they're going to have overlapping historical segments, and they're a far easier means of finding and moving between extremely related articles than categories are. By making random editorial calls as to which towns are notable enough to be mentioned in navboxes, we make unhelpful assumptions of what readers are looking for, and make other towns unnecessarily hard to find (e.g. when I went through the Victorian navboxes there were some quite significant towns that someone who probably had no ties to the area left off entirely). It's much more useful to just list them all and let readers find them all. And about redlinks - what Kerry said. Cutting off redlinks means that if someone creates an article and doesn't know about the template (and they can't use the Whatlinkshere because the redlink is gone), it just gets left out for years (as again happened in Victoria). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just considering the WP:NAVBOX guidelines which suggest navboxes should include articles that refer to each other. When I said significance above I probably meant more that they aren't directly related to each other. For example, you would be unlikely to see Wonglepong mentioned on Aratula or Mount Walker in the see also section of Binna Burra. Its also recommended to avoid large templates which appear overly busy (like the Toowoomba Regional turned out to be) and that an alphabetical list with no logical grouping serves no purposes greater than categories. I wouldn't of considered risk as a factor but I know where you are coming from. I'm not overly concerned with what might be suggested or any impressions which could be gathered. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)