Talk:Biology/Related Articles

Subfields table/template

There is a "General subfields within biology" that I simply moved from the bottom of the Biology page here. I think that by regularizing the location of internal links--including links to articles about subfields--by putting them on "Related Links" pages, this sort of table/template is going to be redundant. If you want to know what the subfields are, you'll always know to look under "related."

Basically, I've always had a bit of a problem with such tables on Wikipedia. (Adding them was a practice that started after I left, so don't blame me.) The links listed are, as they are here in the "Subdisciplines" section, completely redundant. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Other related topics table

Chris, the table is impressive, but I have a worry about it, namely, that so much formatting is going to make some people wary of editing it, and will perhaps make other people less likely to work on the "related" page simply because they think they'll have to know how to work complicated tables.

So I'm inclined to say we should remove the tabular form and simply list the links. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Should links be annotated?

I very much like the brief annotations of links. I think such annotations will really help the end user. Some links, however, will probably be used over and over again on these "related" pages. We don't want to type those annotations over and over again.

So I wonder if it wouldn't make sense, instead, for us to add yet another subpage type for all articles: a one-sentence definition. I'll create a few examples.

I actually think it will be a nice "in"--we'll get our foot in the door, the camel's nose in the tent, get people thinking about a mere definition, and they'll build out the entire wiki in advance of full articles. And I think this will probably be an excellent thing.

What do you think? Will this be useful? --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Lines through the subpage template

Note the lines through the subpage template here. Anybody know a way to fix that? --Larry Sanger 23:02, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Definitions???

OK, here's how I've set it up.

1. In the wiki markup, I replaced the definition of "biochemistry" in the list of subdisciplines with Template:TL (and that template reads, precisely: "Template:Def Biochemistry"). I propose that we replace all definitions that appear on the Related Articles pages with such templates; that way, we can use and reuse the same definitions at will, at the very least on Related Articles pages, if not elsewhere.
2. Next, I created Biology/Definition, the entire contents of which is "{{defpage}}". I propose that all definition pages will be the same; they will provide a very simplistic and consistent setting for the contents of the {{def Title}} template.
3. I added a link to the definition page at the top of the {{subpages}} template. Hence, we'd soon have a definition/description, very brief, about every topic on which we have articles (that use subpage templates). The first thing people will jump to fill out will be the definition.
4. Note some interesting consequences!
   • People might be motivated to create definitions for topics about which there are no articles.
   • Creating a definition and then a defpage (like Biochemistry/Definition) provides a jumping-off point for all other kinds of content. Whee!
   • Hence, we might want to encourage this defining behavior, because it would help build out the wiki.
   • Note, it wouldn't increase (and therefore trivialize) our article count.

One technical problem I've got to solve, though, is how to navigate easily from a Related Articles page to the definition (not the article) as it appears...well, that's easily licked. You'll see... --Larry Sanger 23:50, 6 July 2007 (CDT)