Template talk:Index of contract bridge articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Contract bridge (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


At WP:WPCB we have tabulated 617 articles including 127 in Category, Project, or Template space; 490 in article space i think that means. Is it the purpose of this template to classify and link those 490? If not then which ones? --P64 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. IMHO, only the articles space articles (i.e the 490) should be included. Newwhist (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Category:Bridge people
Should we put all Bridge players in this index? Conversely, should we restrict the category to bridge players important enough to be indexed here?
If not all players, what about Bridge writers?
interjection. For that matter, should we cat everyone a "Bridge writer" for whom we find one bridge book created? --15:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The categories are rather inclusive in some cases, eg Michael Ledeen, per previous editors. Yesterday I added a paragraph on Ledeen's bridge career, with a formal reference, all that I found quickly online. No bridge book is listed, nor is any among his top 20 in WorldCat libraries (but bridge books are not represented well in libraries afaik).
--P64 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


How is this template maintained? For example, are new uses of the talk page banner {{WPCB}} somehow tracked?

If this system is some challenge to maintain, do we know other wikiprojects that have managed one that has achieved middle age like me? --P64 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I created the index template, I looked at many articles with an index and this seemed to be the common approach, i.e, a manually maintained list supplemented by monitoring of new article creation (I presume). I used the existing categories of WikiProject Contract bridge to assemble the initial listings and made manual adjustments by copying and exporting all category listings to Excel, manipulating them and pasting the results back into the Wiki index - worked quite well even if a bit tedious. Unfortunately, doing a "what links here" on {{WPCB}} returns the talk pages of articles without any ordering capability beyond a straight alpha sort, i.e. people articles are mixed up with card play articles etc. etc. The only different methodology I could think of was to have every article have two "index" categories such as category:WPCBIndexAlpha and category:WPCBIndexSubjectX where X is based upon the Index tree structure. But this is extremely maintenance intensive also and no real improvement since someone has to be aware of every new bridge article and check that these new categories have been added - no easier task than adding {{WPCBIndex}} to new articles. Given the modest pace of article growth, it should not be a major chore to keep the index current. One thing that we can do to help is to realign some of the existing category structure to be more in line with the Index structure (eg. the card play articles especially) - wish I had done so when the categories were first created. Any suggestions? Newwhist (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Unfortunately ..." is my concern.
The special link "My contributions" does generate a chronological list which will be some help if {WPCB} is in the edit history. --P64 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

NavBox list by alpha sort[edit]

Upon reflection, I think that the alpha list is of little use and should be deleted. Mosr readers probably think of a purpose or application when looking for a bridge article and so would use the subject listing. Not knowing the name or title of a topic would make it unfindable by any alpha listing anyways. In addition, the NavBox is too long/complex and IMHO should be simplified. This will also simlify maintenance requirements. Comments? Newwhist (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

After the passage of sufficient time, I will implement the proposal now. Newwhist (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)