Solar Cookers World Network

Talk:Compendium of solar cooker designs

1,860pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 01:41, January 28, 2007 by Beth Ogilvie (Talk | contribs)

Delete page or rewrite it in summary style

Ashok Kundapur has created a substantial Compendium of solar cooker designs. It was far too long for one page, so I split it up into multiple pages and created Template:Compendium TOC which I have put on each subpage. Now I'd like help or advice in two areas:

  1. Improving the TOC template. It'd be nice to have some space outside it (so things don't butt right up to it) for example.
  2. Deciding what to do with the Compendium of solar cooker designs page. Should I just redirect this to the Compendium/Introduction page, for example?

--Beth Ogilvie 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, Compendium of solar cooker designs would either be a summary or list article. I've added Template:Main (used {{Main|Parabolic Cookers}}) to Solar Cooking Wiki to facilitate the summary style. Also, look at the navigation box at the bottom of Wikipedia:Yosemite National Park for a third way articles are grouped. Please see Wikipedia:Template:National parks of the United States. It is similar to your Template:Compendium TOC.
Putting articles in sub-directories is discouraged on Wikipedia. I wouldn't do it without a compelling reason. It may confuse the search engine. Try searching for Concentrator cookers, for example. Additionally, I should mention that the rough guideline on Wikipedia for article size is 32 kb excluding references, markup, etc. Walter Siegmund 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Subpages I'm wondering why Wikia allows them in the article namespace, if they cause so much trouble. :-| I'll rename the subpages I've created. Re: article size, the wiki engine grumbles when we edit a page >32K, so we get a constant reminder of that. I've put a comment about the Main template on Forum:Main template. Thanks. --Beth Ogilvie 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You needed another "Wikipedia:" in your link above (which I added). The first Wikipedia references the Wikipedia mainspace where the articles are. The second references the "Wikipedia" namespace where documentation, policy and guidelines reside. Other namespaces are "Image", "Template" and "Category".
Don't take the 32kb grumbles very seriously. It is mostly a historical artifact when some browsers couldn't edit larger blocks and before section editing was implemented. However, many readers will not want to read an article a whole lot longer than 32kb, at least at one sitting. Many, many articles on Wikipedia are longer than 32kb. Still, it is still a useful target. Walter Siegmund 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion was copied from Forum:Contents box Walter Siegmund 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is in transition and might be phased out altogether. The meat of the Compendium is accessible through the table of contents in the right hand box (which I will make more elegant after I learn how). Maybe this page should just have the introduction.--Beth Ogilvie

I copied the Main template from Wikipedia just now. The practice on Wikipedia is to create subarticles when articles become too long and cumbersome to read and edit. The content under a heading is moved to the new subarticle and replaced by a brief summary. The Main template is used to link the subarticle to the original article and visa-versa. A Details template exists that was intended to link from the subarticle to the original, but most editors use Main for the references in both directions. I added Main to Frequently-asked questions so you could see its result and usage.[1] I don't think we have to use this template here, but I want you to know about it. Walter Siegmund

I'm resistant to using this template in the Compendium, since it seems to me it's designed for a structured set of articles where there is a top (main) article and a set of detailed articles. We'd used the Details template to refer from the main to the sub articles, and Main to refer back from the details to the main one. But in the Compendium, there aren't any details on the summary page, so "more details" doesn't fit, and "main article" (referring to the subarticles) doesn't seem to me to fit either. "See Xxx" seems to me quite adequate for the purpose. I could italicize it if that would make it more standard. I'm not wild about the indentation either, I'm afraid. I find it jarring. --Beth Ogilvie 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Compendium, I would retain the original major headings and write a one or two sentence summary to replace the content each place that it was removed. The idea of the summary is to give the reader a better sense of the content so that s/he can decide whether to follow the link, or not. The way it stands, someone who with little knowlege, who sees the link "Parabolic reflectors", has to follow the link to learn what a parabola is and that it is difficult to fabricate such a reflector. The summary style posits that brief summaries to that effect are an aid to the reader. Often, the summary is the same or very similar to the opening paragraph of the subarticle, so they are little work to add. My $0.02. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion was copied from the article and from Forum:Main template Walter Siegmund 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started the process Walter described above, adding a bit of content from some of the sub pages. I also copied Template:Details from Wikipedia to use on the summary page. I added Template:Main to each of the sub pages. This page could still use more work, e.g. little galleries to show typical box cookers and panel (concentrating light from above) cookers. Also the last few sections need summaries. And the whole Compendium needs Next and Previous links to facilitate linear digestion. --Beth Ogilvie 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki