Disputatio:Arx Sancti Augustini

Pinacotheca

We have a guideline "Vicipaedia is not a picture gallery". This page surely had one of our largest picture galleries. I deleted it, thinking it would be far better if the text in it (which is still in the history and can be re-used) were converted into a couple of paragraphs describing the sites of interest.

The list of "incolae notabiles" seems also uniquely long. The list on en:wiki, from which I guess it was copied, differs from ours in that the links are blue, but I notice it is marked as lacking sources: it will therefore, unless someone adds them, be deleted eventually. Our list equally lacks that support. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 31 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, articles on cities & towns in the wikipedias in their earliest days included lists of local residents, but the trend has been to move the names to separate listicles (list-articles). Another alternative would be to expand resident-based categories to include categories like, say, "Categoria:Incolae Arcis Sancti Augustini." At the moment, don't only the largest & most consequential cities have this distinction in Vicipaedia? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:37, 31 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Once a category has been created for the city, it is possible to add an "Incolae" subcategory, and there's no reason not to do this if the new categories will have more than one member page. In this case (for example), we probably now have a city name to which no one will object (... fingers crossed) and it is a logical step to add a city category, and then an "Incolae" category, assuming that we have more than one Incola to put in it.

I strongly urge going through these mental steps -- to limit the number of categories with only one member (I know we have quite a lot, but they are against policy), to make the categories we have as predictable as possible in structure, and to limit the total weight of categories that our descendants will have to maintain! But, in this case, my view for what it's worth is that making those two categories would be good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 1 Novembris 2020 (UTC)

I think that would work. Should it be implemented in addition to, or in place of, the first alternative cited above (articles consisting only of lists of people, sorted by location)? For those in Wikipedia, here's the motherlode: "Lists of people by location." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 1 Novembris 2020 (UTC)

You can decide for yourself, bearing in mind that lists, if they lack reliable sources, are always at risk on the Wikipedias. Logically it doesn't matter whether they are listicles (nice word) or subsections of an article. Eventually someone will say "How do we know?", and if there's no answer, the list might have to go.

I looked at the six names in the current list that are blue -- i.e. we have biographical articles about them. All very brief, but two of them do support a connection with Arx Sancti Augustini. Four don't. Two members is enough to start a category, but two out of six isn't promising if one's thinking about retaining the list: what I just did is the obvious way to begin verifying whether those people really belong in the list or not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 1 Novembris 2020 (UTC)

That qualm will be allayed when the texts get bigger and provide more details. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to St. Augustine as a youth, to nurture his health (and there became friends with Prince Achille Murat, Napoleon's nephew), and Ray Charles "attended school at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind in St. Augustine from 1937 to 1945" (says Wikipedia). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:58, 1 Novembris 2020 (UTC)

Consider that qualm allayed :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:49, 1 Novembris 2020 (UTC)