Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I created contents of contents. I find I’m losing sight of what’s in the nLab since there’s so much of it. Urs (and others) very helpfully go around putting in these “contents” links, but even then you have to be in a section to know that it’s there, so I slurped through the database and extracted all the “contents” pages and stuck them in a single page (via includes). It’s not sorted, but my idea is to update this from the database rather than revising it by hand.
It’s just a first idea at getting some sort of overview; I imagine that this sort of thing can be done much better with some sort of graph showing how the pages link together, but this was quick and easy.
That seems an excellent idea.
Is there also some easy way of finding out which pages have query boxes inside of them? It happens sometimes that I run into a probably long-forgotten query box (just today I found one left by a visitor at real closed field, which I’ve cleaned up) – it might be nice to be able to keep more systematic tabs on these.
Edit: Well, one can just type ’query’ into the search function. I just did so and got 397 pages. Probably most of those have query boxes. Does anyone have better ideas?
I got 381 on the database, the extra that you found are because I searched for .query rather than query. That’s still quite a lot! How would you filter it further? I could produce a page with all the query boxes on, if you like!
How would I filter it further? If there’s some way of distinguishing queries made by people outside some core band of regular contributors from those within the band, that could be interesting. The reasoning here is that visitors outside the band might be dropping a query box without realizing that the best way of grabbing attention is to drop a question at the nForum instead or in addition, whereas people within the band probably know better.
Maybe a page with all the query boxes would be useful, then, with links back to the original pages. Then you could quickly scan through the queries to see which need further consideration. Obviously, not everything would be clear from just the query box, but enough to know whether to click to look further. What do you think of that idea?
contents of contents is awesome. It would be even better if it were sorted in some useful way (alphabetized?). It seems like you should be able to get sorted output from the database, no?
It wouldn’t be hard to sort by something like alphabetical. What would be hard would be to sort it by mathematical genre since it wouldn’t be possible to do that automatically. I think that the benefits of having it done automatically outweigh the benefits of having it organised more neatly (that’s not to stop someone making a more organised version of it, we could have both).
Yes, I agree that making it automatic is good! But I think sorting alphabetically would be better than no sorting at all. Somehow, totally unsorted lists just feel much more overwhelming to me than alphabetized ones, even if I don’t have a specific enough idea of what I’m looking for to find it immediately in an alphabetized list.
Sorting by the first creation date of a TOC makes also some sense to me, though I am not much of interested party here. Why the first creation date ? Well the tocs are often made in bursts in related areas. Alphabetic is good when the titles are short.
1 to 10 of 10