Category talk:Web sites

Applying the website template

Applying template:Website to all the pages in this category may be a good idea. The sub-categories may be able to be replaced by a more effective SMW-based structure. Robin (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2013 (GMT)

Yes. I agree with that. But the sub-categories MAY be used in the 'See Also' sections of a few other pages so need to leave in place until new SMW replacement proven --Peter P (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2013 (GMT)

And of course the same applies to many (perhaps even most) sub-categories of the entire current content category tree. I envisage defining lots of properties that can be referenced within the text of articles (like 'lone-nut gunman', dispensing with the 'is' or 'has'). The containing page would be the subject and a page with an exposition of the concept 'lone-nut gunman' the object. It's entire content need not be about a particular 'lone-nut gunman' (ie LHO and Jack Ruby on the Warren Commission page) but browsing DP concepts would be aided considerably by such facilities - 'False Flag' is another obvious one. Categories are just too clunky to be used like that effectively. How such use might be interfaced with SMW saved 'concept queries' needs exploring too. --Peter P (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2013 (GMT)

I think the 'SeeAlso' sections are due for an SMW upgrade - see other talk. Categories are clunky and more work to maintain, but they are easily understood and use, so they should be a benchmark, a minimum for what a new SMW framework should deliver. SMW does have its quirks that continue to surprise - what is wrong with Human Beings First? Compare and contrast? Robin (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (GMT)

I had a lot of contact with Zahir Ebrahim up to about a year ago when he moved back to Pakistan from the US. He has laser-like perception of the nature of the US/UK, Imperialism and the role of the SIS's. He is a prolific writer but I find his grammar and general convoluted language style off-putting. I tried to get him to allow me to edit his stuff a bit before posting but he declined. Pity because some of it really is very good indeed. He runs his site on both BlogSpot and Wordpress - mirrored I think. Not sure which is best to link to though the blogspot one seems to be fully operational --Peter P (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (GMT) Oops - see what you mean. I'll have a root around maybe not 'till tomorrow though --Peter P (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2013 (GMT)