User talk:Scabba
Welcome!
Hello, Scabba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
Ordering categories
Please, tell me why you sort categories alphabetically. - I arrange them by other criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) For example, for a composer who wrote significant string quartets, I want to see that cat early, while for another who wrote one of them as a student, I want to put it late. Has nothing to do with alpha. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I found that categories are very hard to read and to find , when a composer is in many categories (like Dmitri Shostakovich). Then it is very difficult to find the "interesting" categories. E.g. Shostakovich is in many categories starting with "Russian ...". What is your opinion to this, when it come to a big number of categories? I am not sure if I explained it correctly to have here a maximum of easy to understand structure for the whole category list in an article. Scabba (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- You explained well, but did you read why I choose no to it like that, and know of no rule. I would understand if you do it for articles you write, but mot interfer with articles that have been qualified and stable. What's easy to understand for you, may make it harder for others. - So many articles are missing, so many references are missing, so many errors to correct, - why just rearrange, and for whom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Shostakovitch is a featured article, having passed many reviews. I looked: by sorting alpha, the categories for opera fall apart, - nothing I'd want. Please be careful and best don't change articles with a quality mark (silver star or green cross) in the upper right corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I see, I understand. This sounds very reasonable, especially for material which has proven itself over many rounds of reviews. As I do not want to interfere with already good content. I explain you what I would like to improve. I am interested in String Quartets, so I thought to add the category "String quartet composers" to a composer as soon as he wrote a string quartet. Would this "new" category be best put at the end of the categories? I already found 2 string quartet composers missing on the List of string quartet composers. There is so much to find here, and I want to make a good start. Scabba (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd do it on a case by case basis. If s/he is also a symphony composer, below that might be a good position, not in the middle of alumni or people from somewhere. I have many composers on my watchlist, so noticed what you were doing, and will watch in the future ;) We can discuss cases here if you like. - I often translate, then have the categories already in some order. I also think readers don't go and study cats (as I call them), - more important is to see within a cat what else is there, and for that the order in the article doesn't matter at all. DYK (did you know) that my first article was a composer of string quartets, and Michael the first user to talk to me (if I don't count the one who helped me to retrieve it after it was deleted)? Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is a good place to contribute. Now you are the first user to talk to me. I am glad, you did because there are so many mistakes one can make in the beginning. I want to help and it is important to learn the right things, so the other users are seeing it is contribution and not causing a mess. You mentioned you are translating. In which cases do you translate and how does this work? Scabba (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd do it on a case by case basis. If s/he is also a symphony composer, below that might be a good position, not in the middle of alumni or people from somewhere. I have many composers on my watchlist, so noticed what you were doing, and will watch in the future ;) We can discuss cases here if you like. - I often translate, then have the categories already in some order. I also think readers don't go and study cats (as I call them), - more important is to see within a cat what else is there, and for that the order in the article doesn't matter at all. DYK (did you know) that my first article was a composer of string quartets, and Michael the first user to talk to me (if I don't count the one who helped me to retrieve it after it was deleted)? Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please refrain from changing the order of categories; Wikipedia:Categorization of people says: "There is currently no consensus about the order in which these categories should be placed at the bottom of an article." Further, edits that may be classed as cosmetic changes are often considered disruptive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I confirm not to change the order of categories in existing articles. Scabba (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- The ordering of categories have been undone on all my recent contributions. Scabba (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I see, I understand. This sounds very reasonable, especially for material which has proven itself over many rounds of reviews. As I do not want to interfere with already good content. I explain you what I would like to improve. I am interested in String Quartets, so I thought to add the category "String quartet composers" to a composer as soon as he wrote a string quartet. Would this "new" category be best put at the end of the categories? I already found 2 string quartet composers missing on the List of string quartet composers. There is so much to find here, and I want to make a good start. Scabba (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
