Talk:Main Page - Archive

From Bogleheads

This page was used to experiment with some formatting changes to the Main Page. I think we might as well keep it around for this purpose in the future. Ken Schwartz 19:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, I think your proposal is the direction we should head. Three questions:

1. Why the repetitive use of the string ": Main category:" in the Topic Index?
2. Are you sure we want a Topic Index at all, as opposed (for example) to a simple link to the overarching Financial Planning category?
3. Do we want to explain what content is in the various categories, perhaps using the Main Page, the categories themselves, or some sort of category map page? Ken Schwartz 20:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

1. I know absolutely nothing about the syntax for linking or manipulating categories. I copied the text from the Wikipedia page you cited. I copied an edit and did not want to tamper with the syntax that creates a link to a category.
2. Well, a single link will leave us with an introduction (that will need revising since the category system does not operate in the same manner as a link system, i.e. there are no red or blue links) a picture: and then a mass of empty space.
3. Recalling the forum's objections to masses of undifferentiated, uncategorized, and unorganized posts, we need an interface that organizes posts by subject matter, ideally displays both categories and subcategories in something other than the default alphabetical order. Forum readers will not use the wiki if confronted with any of the undifferentiated lists, such as the special pages category or special pages all posts alphabetical aggregations of posts.Blbarnitz 21:01, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

1. I edited your table to remove the repetitious string and make some other very minor enhancements. Incidentally, it was CyberBob who mentioned the Wikipedia link. It is hazardous to confuse the two of us. CyberBob knows what he's doing; I don't!

2 & 3. You've raised important issues. I really want to see Bob's suggestions on how to proceed. Ken Schwartz 21:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Since this wiki is presumably going to be read by a lot of newer investors, we definitely need to have some sort of a structured introductory page. A Search Only approach is definitely not the way to go, as many people may not even know what to search for. The two main structured options that I would suggest are either Categories or Lists. I wouldn't suggest a template approach, as it's harder to do,less informative and generally harder to navigate.

Categories:

Category pluses:Categories have the advantage of automatic linking in that every time a page is made and a category tag added to it, it is automatically linked to the others in that category via the category page. And, they work well for related article browsing, as something new you may not have thought about is likely linked into that category. Can make sub-categories. No red links in Categories (a plus and a minus).

Category minuses:The main category page is, by default, alphabetically arranged, which some people don't find all that helpful. And if, for some reason, you want to change the name of a category, it doesn't automatically change the tags on all the pages in that category. No red links in Categories (a plus and a minus).

Example of a basic Category page: Category:Investment at Wikipedia

Example of a complex Category page: Category Portal at Wikipedia

Lists:

List pluses: Can be formatted in more ways than a category page.

List minuses: No automatic linking. Unlike categories which automatically link when someone puts the category tag on the page, a list must be manually generated and updated.

Example of a basic List page: List of Investment Management topics at Wikipedia

Example of a complex List page: List of Topics Portal at Wikipedia

Alternatively, we could combine both (that is, a list of categories), as Barry seems to be doing on this page. That seems to be looking great so far. I personally like to use Categories as much as practicable simply for the reason that they involve much less upkeep. And, as a bonus, they can provide a framework for whatever you wiki is about. By that I mean, just look at the categories of pages already produced, and you see what your main page should probably contain, as that's what your wiki contains. (I knew of one wiki that was supposedly computer-related, but if you looked at the Category page, 50% of the articles were actually about tropical fish!)

Regardless of whether categories are used on the main page, a Category tag is something that every page should have to prevent the uncategorized chaos that Barry mentions (at least one category, although a page can be classified into several categories). e.g. [[Category:Asset_Classes]]. And Categories can be even more structured by having sub-categories. e.g. [[Category:Bonds]] would be a likely sub-category of Asset_Classes.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question or not, Ken. But remember, there is always Random Page to fall back on! ;) CyberBob 15:06, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Bob, thanks.

Barry, I don't think I like the Administration category in your topic list. Administration is one level up from the other listed categories, equal with Financial Planning. How about an introductory blurb right above the Topic Index like ...

Top level categories within The Bogleheads Wiki are Financial Planning and Administration. Further detail regarding financial planning appears in the Topic Index.

Ken Schwartz 15:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, three other thoughts:

• CyberBob seems to think your approach is reasonable, which is important due to his experience base.
• We probably want to include a brief (one or two sentence) description of each category right on its category page. As an example, I did one for Charitable Giving. The description should not be very detailed, because we don't want to change it every time somebody adds a new article or even subcategory. We need to strike a balance between user-friendliness and ease of maintenance.
• If you're not comfortable with this whole idea, we can forget about it. (I actually thought you were aiming for something like this all along, because you spent so much effort building a category structure.)

Ken Schwartz 16:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, the inclusion of Wiki Tools in the Topic Index indicates that either you misunderstood the intent of my earlier post (it's probably unclear) or you disagree with it (which is fine). Inclusion of Wiki Tools is not consistent with the "blurb" before the table. Wiki Tools is a subcategory of Administration, not Financial Planning. I doubt most of our readers are very interested in administration. I'm going to shut up now. Ken Schwartz 17:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

"CyberBob seems to think your approach is reasonable, which is important due to his experience base."
-- Ken Schwartz 16:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Oooh, nifty. A quote box! ;) But seriously, in response to that quote, let me just say that if anything, my experience has shown me that nobody -- including me -- can look at things from all angles. At least not singly. But we don't have to because we're collaborative. That's the beauty of a wiki. Eventually, with lots of intelligent editors continually tweaking things, it will magically become the way it ought to be. (although we may not be at that critical mass level of editors quite yet). CyberBob 19:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, Bob, we've decided to elevate you to guru status and double your salary. Regarding intelligent editors, please speak for yourself! Now if you could only tell us how to get that critical mass level of editors... Ken Schwartz 20:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

As of five minutes ago, there were 7,885 registered users of the Bogleheads Forum. All of those forum logins could automatically work as Bogleheads wiki logins too. CyberBob 12:56, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, might it be better to include only the following in the Topic Index?

1. Immediate subcategories of Financial Planning, one per table cell. (You've done this.)
2. Immediate subcategories of the aforementioned categories, each one in the same cell as its parent. (You've also listed additional subcategories. I think this approach will require more maintenance. More importantly, it obscures the category relationships. E.g., it appears that asset classes, fixed income, and bonds are equals, when they're really at 3 different levels.)

I feel there's some merit in listing the more minor categories, but we'd need to come up with a good way to depict the true category/subcategory relationships. Ken Schwartz 14:33, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Edited above to correct error: Changed "asset allocation" to "asset classes." Ken Schwartz 17:28, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Barry, I like your use of bolding in the Topic Index to differentiate between category levels.

Incidentally, "Fixed Income" was appearing in the subcategory list of "Asset Classes," even though its page had been deleted. Here's how I got rid of it. I undeleted the "Fixed Income" category page. I then edited it to remove it from the parent "Asset Classes" category. Finally, I re-deleted it. Weird, but effective. Ken Schwartz 15:43, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I renamed this page from "Main Page test1" to "Main Page Experimentation." We're probably going to keep this page around permanently, and the new title seems more appropriate. I had a devil of a time getting the Administration category to reflect the right page name. Ken Schwartz 19:40, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I've promoted this experimental page to the real thing. Here's part of the entry I just made on Talk:Main Page.

I've copied the category-based page here. Barry's approach seems ready for prime time. I've written brief descriptions for all the financial categories right on the category pages. If my action is premature, we can always revert.

Further discussion should probably occur on Talk:Main Page. Ken Schwartz 00:08, 8 June 2008 (EDT)