Lists vs. Categories -- vote on requesting a new feature installedEdit
We replaced List of mnemonics with Category:Mnemonics with no dissent and no post-discussion regrets announced. We have several other lists. These lists are an evident maintenance problem -- there are many missing entries. There is a MediaWiki extension called DynamicPageList. It allows creating pseudo-list-articles without the tedium of maintaining the list. Before we phase out lists, I believe we need some time to experiment with DynamicPageList. I am asking for a vote on approaching developers and asking to install this extension.
- There are only a few hours in which to vote. Last call! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've already found a problem — the "order" option doesn't seem to work, or perhaps requires some external fiddling. Despite flushing my browser cache and even disabling page caching, I couldn't get it to list the Marvel comic category contents in order. Also, we should probably use something other than the single most dynamic test page in Wikiquote for this test, and continue this operational discussion on that new page's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- MosheZadka (Talk) 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- iddo999 00:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (sounds worth to try as a means to phase out lists, or even just as an interesting experiment... can be removed later in case of a problem)
- Aphaia 14:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC) I have recently found it is convinient and useful - flexible features. And as Jeff said, if we find finally we don't want it, it seems for us not to be harmful with it.
- Is there any reason why we wouldn't want this feature installed? After all, we don't have to use it if we don't want to. Are there performance issues involved? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why doesn't "ascending" work?Edit
I don't think this feature is particularly useful if the article list generated doesn't have any meaningful order. In the current example list, and in every example I've tested so far, no matter how trivial, the "order=ascending" setting seems to be ignored. I don't see how we can use this to replace manual lists until this issue is resolved. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's ordered by various date-related options, not by alphabetical listing. I agree re: non-current usability, I did not notice it when reading the docs, but I re-read them after playing around. It does suck for main listings (though it can be useful to distinguish articles which have been marked as "stub" for a long time, for example). Currently, I'm just using it to have some queries to find stubs I want to work on (my hidden agenda :]). I wonder if making a note in the relevant meta talk page will reach the developers responsible for this feature. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)