| Revision as of 02:44, 17 February 2015 editAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,444 edits →RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?: reply to User:Magnolia677← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 17 February 2015 edit undoAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,444 edits →RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?: further reply to User:Magnolia677 re examples of worldwide use of "see also: Category:People from Foo"Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| *The only place I have ever seen a child category added to a notable people section is by this user, who has arbitrarily added it to hundreds of New Jersey articles. | *The only place I have ever seen a child category added to a notable people section is by this user, who has arbitrarily added it to hundreds of New Jersey articles. | ||
| Thank you. ] (]) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | Thank you. ] (]) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *A reminder that I provided ample context, but the full sentence in the quote left more than two full months ago is '''"My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles."''' Input was sought before and neutral responses were that there is no issue here. I would hope that you would have accepted that input then and I would hope that you'd move on now and accept this consensus that the see also used here is not a category and that it allows for effective cross referencing and navigation. ] (]) 02:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) | *A reminder that I provided ample context in the quotations I used, but the full sentence in the quote left more than two full months ago is '''"My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles."''' Input was sought before and neutral responses were that there is no issue here. I would hope that you would have accepted that input then and I would hope that you'd move on now and accept this consensus that the see also used here is not a category and that it allows for effective cross referencing and navigation. ] (]) 02:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *Take a look through , which includes a wide array of places in the United States and around the globe such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], none of which I added. I never claimed credit for the idea, and I'm not sure where I first saw it, but there are several hundred such uses of "see also" worldwide that other editors have found to be effective ways to cross reference a list of notables for a city and the corresponding category. I would have been much prouder if I had been the inventor of the practice, but I'm not sure why deletion would be justified and the practice banned simply because I was the first to use it and no one else had yet caught on to the idea. ] (]) 05:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| In the article the section on notables is set up in such a way: | |||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| ====Notable people==== | ====Notable people==== | ||
Revision as of 05:02, 17 February 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North Bergen, New Jersey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | New Jersey: Hudson County C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Odd statistic...
"21% of New York City's employed residents work in North Bergen." I've just removed it. If there's a better way to word this, then it should be done, but I have no idea what was meant by this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.62.34 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
North Bergen, south of Bergen County
As a youngster who was not from New Jersey, I remember it being interesting that NJ had a "North Bergen" and a "Bergen County" but North Bergen was actually south of Bergen County. Perhaps this could be included as a clarification statement (because I didn't understand it at first when I was a little kid) Erifnam (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- The opening sentence of the Lead (and of the article) already states that North Bergen is in Hudson County.
- I just added a section of the derivation of the name North Bergen. I added it first, just after the lead. Maybe it should go last. Or have its name changed to something like Etymology. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Single Point Border?
Why does the Geography section make such an issue about NB, UC and JC meeting in a single point? Obviously, any three areas on a plane can meet only at a single point (or not at all). For example, NB, JC and Secaucus meet at Secaucus Rd and Penhorn Ave; NB, UC and WNY meet at 48th St and JFK; NB, WNY and Guttenberg meet at 68th St and JFK; etc. This would be significant only in solid geometry; for example, if the space 200 feet above the ground was a different municipality. What's so special about NB, UC and JC that we have to mention it twice (in the 2nd 'graph and in the Transfer Station bullet)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Personally, I favor simply describing which other cities the city in question borders at north, south, east and west (or northeast, southwest, etc.). Nightscream (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Removal of redundant category
I have removed the redundant category "people from North Bergen, New Jersey". However, Alansohn has twice added it back. I would like to avoid an edit war. This category "people from North Bergen, New Jersey" is redundant, because the parent category "North Bergen, New Jersey" is also on the article. This violates WP:SUBCAT, which states that "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". User:Alansohn has masqueraded his category addition as a "see also", which appears to be an attempt at subverting accepted policy. Furthermore, even if both the parent and child category were to stay, the child category "people from North Bergen, New Jersey" is incorrectly placed. WP:CATDEF states clearly that "category declarations are placed at the end of the wikitext". Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?
 |
|
I've seen many articles over the years for cities that had a list of notables and at the top of the list was a see also to the corresponding category for "Category:People from Foo". As a see also, the article is *NOT* added to the category. I've since implemented that practice and seen it in use in hundreds of articles. For example, the Notable people section in the article for North Bergen, New Jersey has a see also link at the top of the section to Category:People from North Bergen, New Jersey, and this practice is widely implemented without issue; If you click on Category:People from North Bergen, New Jersey, you don't see the North Bergen article in the category. This practice serves several purposes: 1) In the exact goal of WP:CLN, it allows the embedded list of notables in "Foo" city articles to be updated from the corresponding "Category:People from Foo" and vice versa; 2) It serves as a marker to remind those adding notables to the embedded list to remember to add the entry to the corresponding category; 3) It allows the category to be readily carried over when the embedded list is turned into a standalone article; and 4) it provides a gateway to allow readers to use the category system to navigate across other categories for notables from the same area.
The far bigger issue here is that the premise raised by Magnolia677 is completely and totally wrong. There is a big difference between 1) "]" and 2) "]"; Option 1 (without the initial colon) adds the category to the article, but it's not being used here. In turn, option 2 (with a colon) does not, and we do this in Misplaced Pages all the time. The "see also" implements option 2 and does *NOT* add the subcategory, so the presence of the parent is irrelevant. This issue was raised and settled months ago at WT:CLN, where the response was "that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles." Perpetuating his battle, Magnolia677 unfortunately misrepresents how this category is being used and is forum shopping to try to find some way to win the fight he has already lost. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please note:
- I never conceded to this editor's point about this, as was stated in his edit summary.
- The only place I have ever seen a child category added to a notable people section is by this user, who has arbitrarily added it to hundreds of New Jersey articles.
Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- A reminder that I provided ample context in the quotations I used, but the full sentence in the quote left here more than two full months ago is "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles." Input was sought before and neutral responses were that there is no issue here. I would hope that you would have accepted that input then and I would hope that you'd move on now and accept this consensus that the see also used here is not a category and that it allows for effective cross referencing and navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Take a look through this search for uses of "see also: Category:People from Foo", which includes a wide array of places in the United States and around the globe such as Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Danbury, Connecticut, Torrance, California, Quincy, Massachusetts, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Malden, Massachusetts, Webster Groves, Missouri, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Winthrop, Massachusetts, Lares, Puerto Rico, Cattaraugus County, New York, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Marktredwitz, Sowerby Bridge, Wrocław, Amritsar and Manor Park, London, none of which I added. I never claimed credit for the idea, and I'm not sure where I first saw it, but there are several hundred such uses of "see also" worldwide that other editors have found to be effective ways to cross reference a list of notables for a city and the corresponding category. I would have been much prouder if I had been the inventor of the practice, but I'm not sure why deletion would be justified and the practice banned simply because I was the first to use it and no one else had yet caught on to the idea. Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In the article the section on notables is set up in such a way:
Categories:Notable people
See also: Category:People from North Bergen, New JerseyPeople who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with North Bergen include:
- person
- person
- person
Using a category as a see also is an appropriate way to keep a list of nameplace notables up-to-date and well targeted w/o disrupting category hierarchy.Djflem (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)