Category talk:Perth waterfront

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Perth / Western Australia (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon Perth waterfront is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This category is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
Taskforce icon
This category is supported by the Perth task force.
 

Category description, see also, main article[edit]

User:SatuSuro has stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth_Water&diff=prev&oldid=587746371 that he disagrees with my recent removal of this hatnote from the category:

I suggest that it is appropriate to discuss that edit here, rather than at Talk:Perth Water#See also, although the matters are clearly related, and editors are encourage to participate in both discussions.

I removed the hatnote because I don't believe that it is necessary to refer to the reader to one specific page that is in this category - other than the main article, as denoted by {{Cat main}} (more on that below). The whole point of a category is that the reader can see all of the pages in that category. The redevelopment of one specific part of the waterfront is important, but so are all the other articles in this category. (It's not the category's role to "prioritise" the articles.)

As it stands the category text still needs some work.

  • What is the scope of the category?
  • What, if any, is the main article?

As it stands the name of the category is "Perth waterfront", which alone doesn't tell us whether it's intended to cover north shore only, or north and south. Nor does it tell us whether it's intended to cover Perth Water only (ie between the Causeway and Narrows Bridge), or extend further afield, eg east of the Narrows to Mounts Bay Road (which is in that category).

Following the link from "See also: Perth foreshore (disambiguation)" redirects to Perth foreshore - "foreshore" is close enough to "waterfront" in normal usage that the editor could reasonably treat them as synonymous, even without the redirect - which explicitly includes "The foreshore ... on either the northern or southern side ...", but the category also has the text "This category relates to the ... north shore ...".

I suggest that we need to first agree on what the scope of the category is - does it include south shore, or only north; is it limited to between Narrows and Causeway, or go further? Then we state that clearly and unambiguously on the page, preferably with {{Category explanation}}, and we add {{Cat main}} if and only if we have a suitable article (not a disambiguation page). (We can create a stub and write such an article if we need to...)

I also suggest that the words "contemporary and historical" are redundant (in the current text and any future {{Category explanation}}) and should be deleted. However I'd be happy for someone to explain to me (preferably with an example) of what they are intended to exclude from the category. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One - when attempting to get a conversation going moving from one talk page to another and mentioning the only other editor, without notifying them is hardly WP:AGF
SatuSuro 05:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC — continues after insertion below
My response is on my talk page.
Two - most conversation s we (Ames and Satu) have had in last 2 months on talk pages realtive to western australian issues that take up vast amounts of space.... no-one else turns up....
SatuSuro 05:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC — continues after insertion below
... so it's easier to reach a consensus of two than many. We can always post requests for comment elsewhere if needs be. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Three - as no one else seems to turn up to these finely detailed local issues, is it really fair on the readerif there is one... to assume "foreshore" is close enough to "waterfront" in normal usage that the editor could reasonably treat them as synonymous sorts of assumptions? I for one do not, try babel and see what it does for a random sample of translating the two terms into another language? synonymous?
SatuSuro 05:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC — continues after insertion below
OK so they're not exactly synonymous, but for the purposes of this discussion they're close enough, in that neither gives a clue as to whether it is limited to north-only, or Causeway-Narrows only. In any case, we need to define our terms better, as I suggested. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Four - Perth Water, Swan River and similar subjects are poorly organised and pitiful in detail. I would much rather go to the main article of Swan river, and try to sort it out first, before picking around in the debris of the ancillary articles. Playing around with the deck chairs of shorelines in one small part seems the wrong direction. The larger article needs fixing first. satusuro 05:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The articles might need some work, but that doesn't stop us clarifying the categories. Clarifying the categories may also help us with article organisation. I suggest:
Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Gawks... this is drawing out and really.... oh well, as I say to return to my suggestion - for the nth time - the Swan River article needs checking first.

Please oh please do not even think of creating categories like those suggested, they are not what things are about - the perth water article (i think came first) and the waterfront do not need such detail - as there are unlikely ever to be adequate articles for features in such categories - the categories that I created because they relate to terminology that is used in Hansard, online and in the press - therefore they relate to the issues as they arose. And because of this the suggestion

Could we drop all this mucking around in the muddy excrescent regions of the tidal regions of the swan and have a bigger picture - then, perhaps a better prespective. satusuro 08:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Could we ... have a bigger picture - then, perhaps a better prespective"
Thinking about the categories, ie what sorts of articles exist or might be created, is one way of getting that bigger picture - it's a top-down approach:

... breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems. .... Top down approach starts with the big picture

"the categories that I created because they relate to terminology that is used in Hansard, online and in the press ..."
Fair enough that the categories names should match terminology in use, but ...
"... therefore they relate to the issues as they arose."
The categories exist to allow us to logically group the articles, not the issues, which may not have articles yet, and which may or may not map one-to-one with the articles.
In any case we still have ambiguity in the Perth waterfront category description, and anomalies in its contents, and I still think we can easily, and so should, resolve it without having to fix up every article that might or might not belong in the category. We can always split or merge categories latter as the articles change, if needs be.
"Category:Perth waterfront to Category:Perth Water, north shore is something that is not used in reliable sources and should be discouraged... similarly perth water south shore is not in the vocabulary or usage ..."
I'm happy to take your word on those facts, so given that:
  • we have a cat and matching article for Perth Water - well-defined as being between the Causeway and the Narrows),
  • Cat:Perth Water includes both foreshores and the water in between and Heirisson Island
It ought to be easy to answer
  1. Do we need a subcat of Perth Water that includes both foreshores (north eg Barrack Street Jetty, and south eg Mends Street Jetty, but not for example Heirisson Island)? If so, what should we call it.
  2. Do we need a subcat of cat:both_foreshores - or if the answer to 1 is no, do we need a subcat of Perth Water - for the northern foreshore only? If so, what should it be called? (As previously mentioned, the existing cat:Perth waterfront is very close to this at the moment - but the name is ambiguous)
  3. Do we need a subcat of cat:both_foreshores - or if the answer to 1 is no, do we need a subcat of Perth Water - for the southern foreshore only? If so, what should it be called?
  4. Do we need one or more subcats of cat:Swan River (Western Australia) that include foreshores outside of Perth Water (Narrows to Causeway)? If so, repeat Q1-3 above.
  5. For all subcats of Perth Water (Q1-3) or new subcats of Swan River (Q4) what if anything is the main article? (probably there is none).
Note that this is to cover existing articles - but feel free to create and add stubs if appropriate. Later we might create more subcats, eg "history of northern foreshore of perth water", but for now I just want to tidy up what we have. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
To resolve the issue with minimal change, I'd suggest
  1. No subcat of Perth Water that includes both foreshores
  2. Subcat of Perth Water for the northern foreshore only = existing Perth waterfront, but remove the See also (which muddies things), define the scope (north shore, narrows to causeway) explicitly in the cat text, and remove Mounts Bay Rd. No main article (We refer to Perth Water, but that is not the main article, because the article scope is greater than this cat scope)
  3. No subcat of Perth Water for the southern foreshore (any such articles just stay in cat:Perth Water)
  4. No subcat for shores outside of narrows-causeway
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody object to my making the above mentioned "minimal change" to resolve this issue? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I get a headache just looking at this talk page, and thats before I try reading it.
I strongly object to Perth Water subcat for the whole of the northern foreshore being named 'Perth waterfront' as it is a very politically based usage out there in the real world for a very narrow stretch of shore...(Narrows approach roads to Barrack Street Jetty) - check your hansard and newsclippings for colin and johns ditch, and it is clearly a loaded and shark infested phrase...city and river together again
All the rest seems fine. satusuro 14:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've update the category description to be a bit more specific, and to include the historical shore line (Mounts Bay).