Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Contents/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Contents
(Redirected from Portal talk:Contents/Archive 5)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Leevanjackson in topic Four days full protection
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Moved project-level discussions to WikiProject Contents

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Having a bonafide project page is more intuitive. Editors didn't seem to be finding the Contents project, since it didn't have a WikiProject page. Now it does. See Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Contents. The Transhumanist 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also moved the discussion archives there as well, since most of the discussions are system-wide in scope. The Transhumanist 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Topics-based contents pages project

Latest comment: 16 years ago73 comments3 people in discussion

Based on a continuing interest to improve how readers can browse contents pages by topics, it looks like a good time to work on another project. This page can be used as the main location to coordinate the related development activities. I added a to-do list at the top of this page to help plan activities and track their progress. RichardF 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't agree to TT arbitrarily moving my comments and recommendations, I'm moving them back here.

I created Portal:Contents/Arts and culture as a mock-up using basic portal elements to build the page. I believe this is the most adaptable and accepted structure for building pages in Portal: namespace. RichardF 05:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move your task recommendations, I reverted them. You displayed them on a to-do list template, which implied they already reached consensus when they hadn't actually been discussed at all. On retrospect, I should have moved your task list to this talk page so they could be discussed, and I apologize for not doing so. The Transhumanist 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Splitting tables of contents up by subject on to seperate pages defeats the purpose of tables of contents in the first place, and begs the question of why those subject-based contents pages aren't comprehensive (which is the purpose of the lists on those subjects). For example, a contents page specifically on Art is redundant with List of art topics and List of basic art topics and begs the question why the articles links on those pages aren't merged into the contents page to make it comprehensive. Nor is it immediately obvious that the links on the contents page are all to lists (which is obvious on pages titled "Lists"). The Transhumanist 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to have all portals listed on one page, so the whole selection of portals can be easily browsed, rather than having to check a dozen pages for them. The same goes for browsing topic lists, basic lists, glossaries, and categories. Having a master list of glossaries, for instance, seems better than splitting it up into subpages. The Transhumanist 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is hidden here and a one-person project certainly doesn't represent the views of Wikipedia's editors. Since this page is in Portal: namespace, I see nothing wrong with expanding it with subpages, just like any other portal. I'm curious to read what other editors think about this proposal. RichardF 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The project's discussion page is a general discussion with lots of contributors. Note that I changed my comment above before you posted your reply to it. I initially thought your proposal had to do with topic lists in general, and removed that part of my post. The Transhumanist 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Expansion is fine, but your proposal is a combination of split proposals and merge proposals, and links to this split/merge discussion should be posted using the appropriate templates to the top of the respective pages. The Transhumanist 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to split or merge anything. Moving sections to subpages and transcluding them back, by itself, doesn't change how to read a page at all. It's just and editing tool. Nothing is being split from the current pages. Creating new contents subpages doesn't split anything either. They're new ways to look at existing content. That's what transclusion is all about. RichardF 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You mean, place the content of each of the sections on subpages, and then use those subpages to build new pages? I have no problem with that. Good idea. Head-smackingly good. Thank you for clarifying your plan. Now I wish I'd left them on the to do list! Therefore, I've put them back. The Transhumanist 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Need help?  :-) The Transhumanist 18:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know how hard it is to see someone else's castles in the sky! ;-) I really would like to hear from some of the folks who were participating in the Main Page discussion at Talk:Main Page#Portals on the main page to find out if there any other question/concerns/objections. The biggest "challenge" I see is the variety of page formats in the Template:Contents pages (header bar) group. The easiest way to edit the subpages would be to make those pages more like regular portal pages, at least by using Portal:box-header / Portal:Box-header-watch so they can be easily edited and watched. Since I have lots of practice, I'm certainly willing to set up all the new page elements. If you agree with using full names for the pages I suggested, I can get those going. If you agree with putting the current sections in boxed subpages, I can at least get the easy ones started. The other stylistic thing that's easy to see at Portal:Contents/Arts and culture is different subheader styles. That needs working on. Another thing I didn't mention on the to-do list is making good introductions for each page. Starting with portal intros might be the way to go and then improve them from there. Is that enough to start? :-) RichardF 19:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Portal:Contents topical TOC could look something like this. RichardF 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal section transclusion and box test

I tested putting a current contents page section on a subpage and then transcluding it into a portals box. The results are here. It seemed to work fine. I also transcluded that same section to a new, topical contents page. The results of that are here. That worked fine too. For now, I don't see any major technical issues for the topical contents pages proposal. For now, it just seems to be about agreeing on new page naming conventions to get the new pages set up. After that, stylistic question are about things like whether to use boxes on the existing pages and section subheader conventions. RichardF 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I completed all section transclusions for Portal:Contents/Reference, Portal:Contents/Arts and culture and Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. That means...the other existing contents pages have transcluded "Reference" sections, where applicable, and transcluded "Arts and culture" sections. As soon as someone seconds the remaining new page names, I'll start on transcluding to those contents pages. RichardF 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections...yet...I decided to second myself and move ahead with arranging the boxes. The real issues are about what goes into the boxes anyway! ;-) RichardF 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All the page type contents pages (glossaries, etc.) are transcluded to their own subpages and corresponding topical contents pages. Most of the topical pages still need intros. After that, it's things like formatting issues on the original pages and all of Quiddity's points. RichardF 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Things to consider

Essentially, I'm thoroughly intrigued, but cautious. Some wine-marinated thoughts and observations:

Selection of contents
  • Current items included are haphazardly added/selected, to different degrees, at the Overviews and Topics and Categories pages, and need trimming.
  • importance vs quality vs interest vs ?
    • I'm worried that we're giving the impression that these are scientifically selected, or are somehow representative of importance within their topics, or of quality within Wikipedia.

(see old threads: Archive 3#Sections or topic headings and Archive 3#"Best articles").

Think about checking our contents/groupings against these lists:

Consult:

Header template?

We'd probably have to retire/replace the {{Browsebar}} though, too similar/confusing. Also, it breaks at 800x600.

    • I agree such a navbar is a bit much. Based on a review of a recent WikiCharts - Top 1000 articles listing, I recommend we go with something more in tune with reader browsing patterns, such as...


Sex · Other

RichardF (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. The Transhumanist 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Other
  • We, who make these pages and stare and poke at them for hours, need to make sure we're not overwhelming the various audiences. We're making a nav system for the nav systems, which is already self-reflexive enough!
  • Keep in mind the possibility of changing the Main Page navigation links (thread). Ideally, any replacement will be just as simple as it is now.
  • The Nuvola icons still worry me greatly. Too cartoony, too unprofessional; but again, what are we trying to portray here? Family-fun or intellectual rigor?
    • I agree those icons are a bit goofy, but my pc is plastered with goofy icons from all over. I see the use of icons being much more reliable in TOC sections than the words, which change willy-nilly. As a counter balance, I made sure all the images in the new page intros were not these icons. RichardF (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no rush to go live, so let's try to get it slowly right, so whichever projects copy us first don't have to copy our mistakes too.
    • I see a fundamental difference between this new set of contents pages and a long-term Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents. The Topics Navchart clearly demonstrates the existing contents page structure is based on a two-dimensional classification system – topics by page type. All this proposal does is give the readers the option of navigating the existing sections by either classification dimension. As I commented earlier, the topics-based set of pages is much more intuitive than the current set of offerings. Because of this intuitive advantage of the proposed over the current contents pages, I still recommend the following steps be taken relatively quickly.
      • Add the topical TOC to Portal:Contents, such as here.
      • Propose making links to the completed topics-based contents pages on the Main Page. Have a discussion at the Village pump or wherever between the nine links version and the twelve links version. Either one already is a vast improvement over the current portal links.
    • Long term, I support continued work on coordination improvements to what should be the columns (page-type pages), rows (topics pages), and cells (section contents) represented by the Topics Navchart. The inherent conflicts among the various Wikipedia classification systems never will be "fixed." The best a contents project can hope to do is gradually bring some additional clarity and usability to what already ties the encyclopedia together. RichardF (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Quiddity (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoooooweee!!! ;-) RichardF 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My two-cents...
  1. We should consider getting rid of the Overviews --> each section has the same scope as a basic topic list. A couple missing basic topic lists would need to be built, but that's easy. On the subject-based contents pages, their redundancy becomes blatant. Also, the links are to articles instead of lists, which may confuse some users. But most importanly, since the links are to articles, it's incredibly easy to add more links, and the section could grow as large as the basic topic list on that subject.
    1. Getting rid of Overviews is fine with me. RichardF (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree that the subject TOC should be displayed on Portal:Contents sooner rather than later.
    1. Cool, my trigger finger is getting itchy! ;-) RichardF (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Standardize the subject category names on the menus, so they match on all the page type contents pages.
    1. See TOC names for my suggestions. RichardF (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. On the subject contents pages, in each section place an "all" link after "edit" and "watch". The all link would lead to the corresponding page type contents page.
    1. I think it would be more obvious what it meant to put that link closer to the title, like this Overviews (all). Plus it would be a lot easier to implement! Of course, then the corresponding Reference (all), etc., links should be placed on the other pages. RichardF (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Update: I added these links to the template page and started building in parameters. These links work on most of the pages now and they will work on the others as I build in more parameters. RichardF (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. The set of subject contents pages should be a different color than the page type set.
    1. I agree. See my suggestions at Page color schemes. RichardF (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Come up with better names for these two sets of pages. (that is, what we refer to them as)
    1. All of the portals use the term, "topic" for article pages, so the proposed group should have that in the name somewhere, not "subject." RichardF (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Find a better set of icons. Or set up a project for Wikipedians to make some from scratch.
    1. Personally, I think icons are useful. To me this set is about as good as any other I've seen on commercial software. I'm not at all confident a wikiproject would develop a "better" set. RichardF (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Refine the pages and let them season for at least 3 or 4 months before making a proposal to replace the portal links on the main page with links to them. That will give time for the community to get familiar with them, and to provide feedback.
    1. The new pages already are just as good or better than anything else out there, IMHO. I say add the TOC here real soon now, start a conversation a the Village pump shortly after that, and continue to work on the broader classification issues Quiddity, TT and others have been working on for quite some time. RichardF (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

TOC names

I added a TOC names chart at the top of this page to help track where they stand. Please update it as any changes are made. RichardF (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanist, how does changing "Arts and culture" to "Culture and art" "fix grammar"? What is the violation that needs fixing? RichardF (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic labels

I added a chart at the top of this page, /TopicLabels, to help keep track of how the topics' long names and short labels match up. Please update it as changes are made. RichardF (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Page color schemes

Obviously, I'm partial to the "Wikipedia Blue." ;-) I would like to see that on the main contents page and the topical pages because I believe they are more intuitive than the others. Having all the other pages one different color scheme makes sense to me. I would go for the green at Basic topics, assuming the hues match. If not, adjust them a bit. RichardF (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Two-tone is fine by me. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless I hear otherwise, I'll work on blue for the main and topics pages plus green for the page type ones. RichardF (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Green is okay with me. The Transhumanist (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Topical TOC on main Contents page

I made the TOC live here to see if it makes the wikiglobe explode. If you revert it, please give your reason here with a summary of the conditions under which you would agree to put it back up. :-) RichardF (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the TOC off after I did some Contents pages category organizing. RichardF (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks identical to, and is thus utterly confusing with, the TOCs in the various contents-by-type pages. I object until they are different from each other. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume contrasting the two groups of pages by color, blue or green, will be enough to remove the TOC objection. RichardF (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I think Portal:Contents/TOC is fundamentally flawed whilst it shares the same outline/form/wording/icons/etc (but different links), with the ToC in pages like Portal:Contents/Overviews. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I believe it's fundamentally sound because it reflects the inherent two-dimensional nature of all these content pages. It is simply descriptive. If you want to fundamentally change Wikipedia's navigation structure before any changes are made, then I can go off and do something else while you all figure that out. RichardF (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
One solution would be to get rid of the "page-type contents pages" altogether, and just have the "topics-based contents pages", as you alluded to above. I'm not sure about this either though. It all needs more input than just us 3. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If we ask specific people to comment, maybe some of them will. I also added requests for others to add comments at the subpages, related projects and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Coordinating Portal:Contents pages. RichardF (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Resetting the question. I adjusted all the page-type contents subpages to a green palette. All the topical contents subpages have the same blue palette as the main Contents page. What other distinctions between these two sets of subpages need to be made before a topical TOC can be added to the main Contents page? RichardF (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard, what I think Quiddity is referring to is that the function of the TOC on the contents page isn't intuitive because it doesn't work the same way as the TOCs on the contents subpages. On the various contents subpages, each link in the TOC (and the links in the TOCs of every article on Wikipedia) lead to subjections on the page. Whereas the TOC on the main contents page would jump to different pages. It will probably be confusing to a lot of people. But there are many alternatives, with the goal being to make it intuitively obvious that it navigates off the page (header bars do that, and footers, and info boxes, etc., so it shouldn't be that hard for us to come up with something. The Transhumanist (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Since all these pages are now Portal pages, I'm mostly thinking like a portal designer. Subpages for display on their own often are linked by tabs across the top. Because there are 12 topical subpages, I took the lazy route instead of trying to figure out how to do 13 tabs! >;-o) Conceptually, that was my first choice (but not anymore). The way subportals often are linked is in a box somewhere, like how I proposed to do it. The thing to do this way is come up with the snappy box label, Right now, I'm using "Topical contents pages" at the bottom of each of those pages. To make it look more like a navbar, it could be placed above the page headed and under the current navbar. That could stay the same, get a snappy new label like "Types of Contents pages" and stay put, or... get put in the box above the page header. All that still probably still will be too confusing for some. What I think I'll try next is a "TOC navbar" that combines the two. I'll start with the four lines of links with no icons. That might be the best way to go for all 19 Contents pages. ;-) RichardF (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the TOC navbar test is here. Like Quiddity said elsewhere, the topics line wraps on 800X600 displays. But whatchagonnado, leave it two lines and goofy for some or make it three lines and a little more annoying for everyone? I think this is the best approach so far. I hereby drop my proposal for a big box on the main page and get behind the same, complete navbar on all 19 contents pages. :-) RichardF (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents pages layout

I reworked the Portal:Contents/Topics layout style a bit to be more like the main contents page while still using the portal box-header template approach. Based on this way of building pages, it should be realtively easy to establish a consistent layout style for all contents pages. RichardF (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I added all 19 Contents pages links to Portal:Contents/TOC. It's style and placement at the bottom of Portal:Contents/Topics layout is consistent with the usual "Related portals" box on traditional portal pages. RichardF (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure duplication

Having the subpages transcluded via another transclusion (e.g. Portal:Contents/Reference/Topics from Portal:Contents/Lists of topics/Reference) means there are twice as many pages to watchlist for vandalism, and the "watch" links (e.g. at Portal:Contents/Reference#Topics) don't work as intended (and possibly the compilation pages won't purge themselves properly, as their immediate subpages will never show as having changes?). Could you eradicate half, in some way, or is there a specific need that these duplicates are trying to address? -- Quiddity (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal isn't about needs, it's about choices. If you want to get rid of half the pages, get rid of the page-structure pages. What does an organization like that have to do with content? RichardF (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not addressing the pages themselves in this thread, just the transcluded items they're made up of. I had to spend 5 minutes just finding and watchlisting all the 160 subpages we now use; there is a huge potential for abuse in this. Eliminating half (which only act as redirects, e.g Portal:Contents/Reference/Topics), and thereby making the embedded "watch" links work properly, would be a good step.
I was asking you to do it purely because I was hoping you had the whole structure in your head more coherently than I do, and so could fix the problem in the least number of steps (plus my fingers hurt, RSI). Hope that explains things :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm going to butcher techie terminology here, so my apologies to anyone who notices. In a nutshell, my proposal is based on analogies. In effect, I'm proposing upgrading the collection of contents pages from a flat file system to an object-oriented relational database management system. The current pages are organized along two dimensions – page types and topics. Template:Topics Navchart does a good job of representing that two-dimensional relationship. A similar chart could be constructed that included column headers that linked to type contents pages, row headers that linked to topic contents pages, and cells that linked to the corresponding type-by-topic subpages. A fully-formed table would have 6 X 12 = 72 subpages that actually contain Wikipedia navigational links. Subtracting a few red Xes and combined topics gets us 65 subpages to start. Changing the number of rows or columns would change the number of cells/subpages accordingly.
The benefits of upgrading from flat file to object-oriented relational database management systems include having virtually all unique data in exactly one place. That means all of the inherent problems in managing duplicate data in multiple locations are eliminated from the start. From these sets of related data, multiple reports can be generated that focus on the best ways to present the data for the intended purposes. By analogy, that's what I'm proposing we attempt to accomplish here. Store the unique data (links to Wikipedia articles and related pages) exactly once. Report the unique data from multiple perspectives for multiple purposes – give the readers choices on how they prefer to navigate contents pages (without duplicating the underlying links).
From the perspective of editors and readers, I believe this proposal has its most compelling potential benefits. By placing the existing sets of page-type links with each other on topics-based pages, the redundancies and glaring omissions become blatantly obvious. Such arrangements should make it much easier for editors to notice, discuss and resolve major contents navigational issues. As these issues are addressed and resolved, the experience for readers should be vastly improved. These navigation issues already exist. The fact that even the mock-ups of this proposal help focus the issues attests to the benefits of putting something like this online.
I developed a single layout page for topical contents pages that links to a transclusion page for each subsection. That's where the extra pages you (and I) don't like come from. I would make a complementary layout page for the type-contents pages too. I probably can figure out how to get the edit and watch buttons in each topic-contents page header to go directly to the type-contents subpages where the article links actually sit. That will eliminate all of the unnecessary pages no one really wants to watch. I'm pretty sure I know how to do that, but if I run into trouble, I'll ask for help. I'll start with a few extra parameters on the layout page to see if I can get that to work, then take it from there. (If that was your only concern for this section of the discussion, then ignore all the rest of this! At least this gave me a chance to describe my proposal in a little more gory detail. ;-)
  Done That was too easy! What was the question? ;-) RichardF (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the rest of the organizing pages are pretty much needed for an arrangement like this. If someone knows how to cut them back further, let me know. Another comment I have is that if I'm just spitting into the wind on this, I don't see much point in taking the mock-ups much further. For a proposal, I think I've taken it far enough for others to see what I have in mind. If someone else has a better idea, I'd love to see that too! :-) RichardF (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Top of page navbar

I've been using Portal:Contents/TOC navbar at the top of the proposed pages. As I write this, it has 19 links on two lines that do not wrap on my 800X600 display, e.g., here. There are lots of ways to go with a navbar like this. Is ther any consesnus? :-) RichardF (talk)

A 95% version for both lines is here. A 100% version for both lines is here. RichardF (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the contents navigation line from Template:Contents pages (header bar) to Template:Browsebar to test how they worked together. You can see it here. Obviously, John Gohde didn't like it, so I reverted it. (He also seems to be claiming Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine as his own, by the way.) I still believe a complete Contents pages navigation bar is the best way to go, even if it takes up more than one line. Any comments on this? RichardF (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another, weaker, way to do this is at the "crossover" page, Portal:Contents/Portals. This is the one page both navbars have in common. It forces a reader to go to that page, instead of any page either one is on now, but it's better than nothing. In case it gets reverted, the example is here. RichardF (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of page sections and navbars

The order of sections on the original page-type pages is fairly routine – Reference then alpha order by topic. I don't think anyone cares to make a big deal about that. The order of the sections on topical pages started by following the order of the Browsebar - first article space pages, then portal pages, then category pages. Since Wikipedia is nothing without the articles, I can see the logic of listing them first. John Gohde has argued to move the portals section to the top of the page. Does anyone have any specific alternative proposals or suggestions they want to offer on this? RichardF (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I was asked by RichardF (talk · contribs) to come here and provide some feedback, but I think I've been working too heavily on portals lately myself and have seen this page before, what I think you need is a fresh look. I would suggest grabbing a friend of yours who has never edited Wikipedia before, and taking them to this Contents page and asking them how the layout looks and what can be done to improve user friendliness. For one thing, the list format is kinda simple and plain, a more attractive style might be to structure it itself like a Featured portal, with four or more subdivided sections/boxes. Cirt (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Cirt. I did already show my non-techie wife and asked her what she thought. She said, "That's nice dear." I also think it would be easy enough to portal it up a bit more after a basic navigational structure is accepted. Before that, I keep humming tunes to myself that feel like they go well with arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. ;-) RichardF (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point. (Page formatting is much more labor intensive). The Transhumanist (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Speaking of redundancy, Portal:Contents/Health and fitness repeats the same topic six (6) different ways. You got one display box for each.

I think any visitor trying to use this type of a setup will have a mental melt down. And, after giving up will go for the section on the very top of the page. Being that portals are next to last, this will effectively remove Portals completely from the scene.

So, why are Wikipedians busily creating 100's of portals, if only a handful of people have the power to give them the ax? I see no consensus of thousands, here. Just a couple of guys, in charge, intent upon giving portals the ax.

The only positive that I see is that the consensus of opinion is that categories are next to useless when compared to the old fashion list.

-- John Gohde (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I agree. The same goes for giving the "Overviews" section the complete ax (as suggested above). I don't think shuffling/duplicating content around is going to fix it (but I don't have a better solution this morning, either). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering I've probably developed more featured portals than just about any other editor at Wikipedia, I consider John Gohde's comments quite ill-informed and disrespectful. It looks like a good time for another wikibreak. RichardF (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He has no reason or obligation to be aware of your/our backgrounds. He was just giving an opinion. Wikibreaks are always a good thing though, come back refreshed :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I have no intention of allowing anyone to accuse me of conspiring to sabotage portals or any other part of Wikipedia without being called out on it, if I so choose. RichardF (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with [The Original Wikipedia:Main page alternative (portals)]. You have a slight variation of the browsebar on top, with a slight variation of the {{Contents pages (header bar)}} on the the bottom. It looks almost identical to the current main page. All it requires is a little detail work. -- John Gohde (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My newly created portal can still function as a doorway page in Google. It was crawled on Dec 2nd. In a few months, I will be able to determine how well it ranks for a few keywords. So, all is not lost. :( -- John Gohde (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
How do you determine how well it ranks? The Transhumanist (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

John, this is all hypothetical. We're speaking mostly in terms of this new prototype (the subject-based contents page set).

We're hands-on and like to tinker, to see how things will look and feel. That way, benefits and shortcomings become more readily apparent. Think of the prototype as clay. We can just as easily glop back on any chunks that we tear away.

With respect to changing the Main page or deleting major pages like Portal:Contents/Overviews, wider discussion will be required, so there's nothing to worry about. We're not at the proposal stage yet.

Well, back to tinkering...

The Transhumanist 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to integrate these without making the presentation too busy? The Transhumanist 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To integrate which to what? -- Quiddity (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RichardF: It's a fascinating proposal, with an elegant design, that opens a lot of possibilities for multipurpose content usage. However, I'm still gravely concerned about the redundancy with the existing portals, and would be happier to see the existing portals get more attention. Could we feasibly integrate these contents into the actual portals, whether as subsections or subtabs, instead? e.g.

etc. Thoughts? (Sorry I haven't been more active in helping, just critiquing. It's a very busy season in my household, and this project has too many ramifications to keep easily straight ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you fork a nav header?

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

With two subsets of pages, "Contents" would be on two nav headers, but only one of those nav headers would be on the Portal:Contents page. So if nav-header-A was on Portal:Contents, and you happened to be blowing across nav-header-B, once you clicked on "Contents" you'd be stranded from nav-header-B, the nav header would appear to change abruptly, and you would have to resort to the backspace key or the back arrow on the browser toolbar to get back to it. Not good.

So, how could we have the two nav headers linked together by sharing "Contents" without the user getting stranded, and without expanding beyond one line?

How about the word "(Types)" in parentheses after "Contents"? It would be a redundant link that would lead to the first page in the page type contents subset (Overviews, or whatever). This is assuming that the main nav bar would be subject-based. "(Types)" could be left off of the page type nav bar, to help differentiate it from the subject-based nav bar.

One potential problem is that a user might interpret "types" as applying to the Overview page's contents rather than to the set of pages on the nav bar.

Any thoughts?

The Transhumanist (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What are portals: "Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. ... The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." Wikipedia:Portal Is that true or is it not true? If true, then clearly portals positively should be stressed. At the very least they should be referred to as Introductions in any one line navigation bar and placed near the start of that single line. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now convinced myself the 19 Contents pages should never be separated in any navigation schemes on those pages! :-) At the time I'm writing this, Portal:Contents/TOC navbar for the tops of pages and Portal:Contents/TOC for the bottoms of pages both have all 19 links. You can't get much more unambiguous than that for showing the navigation scheme. As far as them being "too much," line wrapping and such, they is what they is. That's the actual complexity of what's already out there. Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Believe it or not, I also agree portals are the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia to help readers navigate around this place. I created an intro section in Portal:Contents/Topics layout to serve the same purpose as any other portal – introduce the topic. To keep the navigation style compatible with regular portals, the right footer link should go to the main article(s). I added a left footer link at Portal:Contents/History and events to add the main portal links. I'll do the same for the other proposed contents pages. Eventually, I could add a layout page for these intros too. RichardF (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
All of these intros now have what appear to me to be the main portal links, if any exist. RichardF (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I counted fifteen portals linked by this method in the new contents pages. That's a two-thirds increase from the current portals browsebar. RichardF (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The simplest approach here might be to include both navigation bars only at Portal:Contents/Portals as a linking/crossover page. It's the same concept as a key record to match up tables in a relational database management system. An example of that is here. RichardF (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. We should try it. The Transhumanist (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 06:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a good experiment, but it doesn't work too well. The portal browsebar, which now links to subsections of the portal contents page, is redundant with that page's Table of Contents which is already at the top of the page. So I've removed it. The megaportal solution discussin in the section below should fix the problem, by turning all the portals on the browsebar into subject-based contents pages. The Transhumanist (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you mean "merging into" instead of "turning [into]". We need to integrate the "Contents" content into the existing portals, not create a whole set of new portals. At least, that was my understanding of the proposal below. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, merging. I'm with you. See Portal:Technology The Transhumanist (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also removed the word "Portals" from the browsebar, because all links on the browsebar are to the subsections of that very same page. So it's already covered. The Transhumanist (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I see not "problem" with the "Portals" link on the browsebar. In fact, I see it as a benefit by showing the relationships among the two navbars. Obviously, others interpret this differently. Down the road, this whole 19-pages-navigation thing should be one of the discussion topics in the Magaportals improvement drive. RichardF (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Megaportals

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I was reading a comment by Anarchia who was pointing out two portals with too much overlap and wondering why this new proposal was creating even another redundant portal. Shortly after that, I realized he was right. The more I worked on the new contents pages, the more they started looking like "regular" portals, and Cirt was wondering why they weren't even more so. Then I started thinking about more of our big ideas here. To paraphrase... John Gohde says make portals the real windows to Wikipedia. Quiddity says take all of the topics groupings into account. The Transhumanist says put everything into a list. I say use a two-dimensional organizer of page types and topics then build everything up from those subpages. And so it goes.

If we did all that, we would come up with a number of what I'll call megaportals – comprehensive portals that cover the landscape on high-level topics like those listed on the Main Page. Two examples of what might be closest to that idea right now are Portal:Science and Portal:Religion. Using the ideas listed above, megaportals would be developed by enhancing existing portals, when available. They would be prominently linked from the Main Page and other navigation tools. They would be selected from a common core of important topics. They would include unduplicated versions of the contents pages lists. And these lists would be transcluded from the applicable subpages.

All of these pieces already are in place to one degree or another. The trick is to align comparable elements from contents and portal page designs, pull things together or fill in the gaps where needed, and have an overall way to encourage collaborations in the efforts.

As part of that process, here is a chart that compares the elements of contents and portal page designs. Starting with the contents pages, corresponding portal sections include Topics, Lists, Related portals, and Categories. Everything on a contents page has somewhere to go in a regular portal. In fact, these corresponding elements should have the same content. An activity here would be to merge the common elements into a single subpage, like at the contents pages now.

The twelve sections of the contents pages correspond, in varying degrees, to one or two existing portals. Some of these portals are well-kept, some aren't. That portals quality issue pretty much is the main motivator for all this activity to "fix" things. It would be quite an activity to look at all the article classification systems out there to settle on the portal candidates for something like this, but it's still doable and worth it.

Because the main activity here would be to raise the quality of some group of portals, I suggest this be done primarily through the portals project as a portal improvement drive. Use the portal peer review process to develop consensus at various stages for the improvement drive as a whole and for specific portals. Some aspects of the process, like which topics and overall navigation schemes could go to the contents project, but it still only has one member. That's why I think checking off most of the steps through the already operational portals processes is a solid approach.

This all started for me when David Levy said he wouldn't buy links from the Main Page to sections of the portals contents page because they would be too redundant. That proposal was an extension of switching the portals browsebar to the portals contents subsections because many people don't like the quality of the existing portals. The "simple" solution for me was to create expanded versions of those sections that also included the comparable subsections from the other contents pages. One thing led to another and as these new pages were portaled up, they started looking more and more like another set of incomplete and redundant portals. When Anarchia pointed that out, I saw what I was doing was just another dog chasing its own tail. In any event, I hereby drop my proposal to create a new set of topical contents pages. Sharing the common elements between existing contents and regular portal pages would be a much stronger approach. Any interest in looking further into something like this? RichardF (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal designers will copy the megaportal design. Redundancy with topic lists will grow. There will be the temptation to fold topic lists into portals. But portal space is not included in default search settings, and if it was, search results would become cluttered with portal subpage names. To get an idea of what that would look like, take a look at the portal namespace via the all pages special page. Also, portal design is not standardized (nor should it be), and some include topic lists and many don't. Therefore, topic lists should remain in the main namespace. Portals should link to them or transclude them, but building redundant topic lists in portals should be discouraged.
How the megaportals are designed is crucial.
The Transhumanist (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Those all seem like reasonabale expectations to me. I'm not following the lists-in-main-vs-portal-space debate, so I don't have much of an opinion about that. However, since all the lists I'm discussing already are in portal space, this proposal doesn't adversely affect that position. In addition, this proposal would have us transclude lists to portals from wherever their primary location might be, just like the previously proposed set of pages do. Since this proposal is about lists, all of the proposed portals involved would include those lists. In addition, every portal is expected to cantain lists of topics and categories. There's no departure from any portal design expectations here. Any redundancy among portals is inherent in their main topics. If the topics overlap, then the lists should be expected to overlap. That issues isn't about lists, it's about redundant portals. Redundancy in main portal topics should be kept to a justified, consensual minimum. RichardF (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the page-type contents pages should be kept, as it is useful to have all glossaries listed in one place, etc. The Transhumanist (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. :-) RichardF (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A portal magnum opus. Sounds perfect :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One "megaportal" completed. See Portal:Technology and applied sciences. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to it! I cleaned up the wikimarkup a bit, used widely accepted section naming conventions and removed the "Technology and applied sciences" portion of new sections because it's redundant in a portal. The main portalish faux pas I saw was the lack of icons for the related portals. This wouldn't cut the mustard in a featured portal request. Other than that, the stuff is there! :-) RichardF (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Second "megaportal" completed. See Portal:Health and fitness. The Transhumanist (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but I'll wait to consider a megaportal to be "completed" until it receives one if these. →  ← ;-) RichardF (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

I added The portal namespace improvement drive: Contents and megaportals to the portals project discussion page. Feel free to chime in. :-) RichardF (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Main topics classification systems

At the top of this page, I added a first-draft chart of the main topics classification systems Quiddity mentioned (minus those without topical lists). I'll putz with it as time goes by. Feel free to join in the fun! ;-) RichardF (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the chart, Main topics TOC systems by Fundamental categories, to the top of this page. It organizes the main topics TOC systems by the group of Fundamental categories. It demonstrates the twelve current topical sections for Contents subpage TOCs can be used to organize all main TOC topics. It also highlights the value of futher discussions about what names to use for some of the TOC section headers. RichardF (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page, I added a chart of the navigational templates and subpages used on the pages related to this improvement drive. More food for thought! RichardF (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review: Contents and megaportals

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Check out the Contents and megaportals portal peer review. RichardF (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to suggest adding a link to Wictionary under the Glossary head, maybe "Also try our sister project Wiktionary"--agr (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Navigational lists - namespace discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a pointer to Wikipedia:Move navigational lists to portal namespace, which has been in discussion since January. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines".

The Transhumanist 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming dispute over one of the pages renamed per the above proposal

A couple editors are resisting the name change of List of basic opera topics to Topical outline of opera.

The entire set was renamed by consensus at the Village pump, but I'm not sure what to do about this conflict. How is consensus applied in this situation?

The Transhumanist 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this be the contents page??

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a comment people... I just clicked the 'contents' link on the left of the page out of curiosity and ended up here. What I would expect on a 'contents page' is something like Portal:Contents/Categorical index. This page is more of a help/overview page than a contents page... just a thought... Erich (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an overview of all the different contents pages. We have more than one! -- Quiddity (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


????????????????

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where has all the previous discussions gone? There does not seem to be any archives and it seems that much of the material before and after December 2007 has been deleted or moved to places unknown. What is going on here? Simply south (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. There hasn't really been any discussion here since Dec 2007.
  2. A lot was moved by TT to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents (including all the talk archives). It's quite confusing, and I'm not sure how to fix it. I think splitting the page to the Wikiproject was unhelpful (more pages to watchlist, more likelihood for discussions to get missed (we had few enough participants as it was...)), but I haven't had the time or energy to argue for merging them back together. Do you think they should be? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Links down to the indices in the intro text

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since plenty of people will have come to this page to get to the sort of thing we have listed at the bottom, in the A-Z index and categorical indices, which are a long long way down the page, I have added some links downward to those sections in the intro text. Revert if you don't like the changes, but I don't think I've "bloated" the intro text too much. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think a mention of and link to Wiktionary, perhaps under Glossaries, would be appropriate. --agr (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It already is linked in the intro at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting Wiktionary is important enough to be linked from the parent article. --agr (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, all of the glossaries are stuffed into wikt:Special:AllPages/Appendix: without an easy access point, and, the appendix namespace there is not included in the default search. That's one of the many reasons I've suggested against migrating glossaries to Wiktionary (see some of the old discussion at Portal talk:Contents/List of glossaries#Mass deletion/move of glossaries to Wiktionary?). I'd very much like for all that material to be accessible, but until it is, I'd be hesitant to send newcomers there looking for glossaries. (That's the condensed version, I hope it makes sense :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this decided (overview)

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

How is decided what gets in here and what doesn't? It seems very erratic, with articles of very limited importance added and very general ones omitted. Something like "Bodybuilding nutrition" is listed, even though that is only one section in the general bodybuilding article. An unsourced article like General fitness training is listed. Promptness is a link to Wiktionary, since we don't even have an article on it. Technorealism is a stub. There are 20(!) articles on textile arts listed (plus the main one), but none about comics. We have the Hubbard Medal, but nothing about the Nobel prizes. No article on atoms, the elements, molecules, ... is listed, only the basic chemistry and physics subjects. For a page that is so close to every page (second link on the left, then first bolded link on that page), I would have hoped for something better. Shouldn't this list the basic topics and/or the best articles? Presumably the first, since the "featured content" button brings you to the best articles we have: but the articles linked now are often not the "basic concepts" by any stretch of the imagination. We have tourist geography but not Holocaust... Fram (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly random and erratic. I tried to bring that up when we first discussed it for inclusion in the sidebar, but noone seemed to share my concerns. (Or were intimidated by the scope so much that they didn't say anything?)
This (semi-random diff from 2005) is approx where it started from.
There are dozens of sub-problems, like the scattered talkpage archives (see #???????????????? above). And almost complete lack of development for the last year.
Please please help trim/expand/fix the whole set! I'll try to devote more time to it this week, also. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I have now as a first attempt cleaned up the first section, "general reference", removing seventeen (or about one third) of the subjects. I have not added any new ones, although there may be some missing. Fram (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Next two sections (culture and geography) now reduced as well, each time removing about one third. I believe I have kept all essentials that were there yet, but removed the "clutter" (articles we need, but which aren't of such potential importance as to be listed on this main overview). Fram (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Health and Fitness has been halved (overlap with the Sports section, and overemphasis of some aspects). Fram (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Only relatively minor removals in History and events. Fram (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed half of Mathematics and logic. Fram (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Minor removals in Natural and physical sciences Fram (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress Classification

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if there was any objection here about moving the umpteen LoC Classification sub-articles from mainspace into subpages of this page, or even to its own Portal:Library of Congress Classification Index (or similar). As they currently stand, they don't really meet criteria for inclusion in mainspace, although Eclecticology has stated that he may try to improve them so they are more than just pure indices. Anyone here have any other ideas on the matter?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They're lists, not articles, so have a slightly different set of expectations associated. I'd favour eventualism in general, especially if people are stating they might be working on them soon. Merging into 2 articles would probably be best (as per Dewey), if that doesn't make it ridiculously large. Definitely merge to 1 list per letter, at a minimum.
If not in mainspace, then following the Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus as an example would be my recommendation (per your redlinked title suggestion above).
Need more coffee. Damn clock change. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arabic?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I didn't want to remove it, incase it was there for a reason (although I cannot think of one at the moment?) but at the bottom of this page there is a dead link "ده‌روازه‌ی ناوه‌رۆکه‌کان:کوردی" . Slightly odd? Gec29 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. looks like a test. removed. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki tags

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could do with links to all the relevent pages for the weasel tags (and all the others such as "dubious", "citation required" etc) here, or at least somwewhere useful. Or better still actually on the main sidemenu. I cannot find a complete list of them anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubileeclipman (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic outline description in WP:MOS

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was browsing the Manual of Style to attempt to find a description of what a topic outline should look like. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate such a page. Could someone please kindly direct me to the editorial guideline concerning "Topic outlines"? Otherwise, I think that perhaps some of the items which may (or may not) have met the criteria for a "list" do not meet any reasonable requirements for a "topic outline". For example, the Topic outline of mathematics is definitely not a topic outline of mathematics, although it may be a (poor) List of basic mathematics topics. Please indicate the relevant places in policy which justify such ill-considered wholesale and possibly inaccurate re-naming from "list of ..." to "topical outline of ..." so that I can voice my disapproval more publicly. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I should add here that starting an article "Topic outline ..." is totally contrary to the suggested naming of lists at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. I think this endeavor does not belong in article namespace, and should be kept in the portal namespace if possible. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
A) For the tip of the iceberg (yeah, this has all been discussed before, and will all be discussed again) see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 28#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines" and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 31#Proposal to rename the pages called "List of basic x topics" to "Topic outline of x" and Wikipedia talk:Move navigational lists to portal namespace.
B) I disagree that the pages belong in portal namespace, and you'll have to read the archives to find out why! (mostly because my wrists hurt).
C) I agree that Transhumanist is way too promotional, and a bit owning, of the basic topic list set. I see it as an interesting egg, but he seems to be selling it as a fully grown chicken. However he has contributed a hell of a lot to it (mostly helpful ;)
D) Sadly, the project is still underdeveloped, and the history got spliced all over the place, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents for most of this page's talk archives... And see Portal talk:Contents/Lists of basic topics which should be located at Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge (fixed) (I don't know how he breaks so many page moves...) and see Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge for where this is all meant to be being coordinated.
Ow. wrists. and now a headache too. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just as a heads-up, I've created Wikipedia:Content noticeboard per what appears to be a fairly solid consensus; see here for background context. Any suggestions/comments are appreciated. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Icons

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm proposing replacing the icons in the TOC template with a visually more cohesive icon style. As these icons appear on multiple pages, please go to Portal talk:Contents/Types TOC to see and discuss this proposal. Elekhh (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What other changes would you recommend to make the contents pages more professional? The Transhumanist 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it could be much improved - basically complete redesign. But in terms of small steps, addressing some of the biggest issues would be great. The major shortcoming of the page is that it is visually uncohesive, as it uses too many different graphic styles for structuring information: multiple indents, brackets and italics. On top of this, Featured Portals are indicated by bold fonts. I would suggest:
  • get rid of italics, its use is superfluous and confusing;
  • remove indent between top and 2nd hierarchic layer;
  • compact information by re-layouting page to two columns (as the main Wiki page), given that current screen resolutions tend to be at least 1024px width, and allow optimal view of two collumns.
  • consider indicating  Featured Portals not by bold font but the small star.
  • consider illustrating each major section with a nice FP image.
Elekhh (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the recent neglect, I'd endorse all the above. Start off slow, and let us know what problems crop up :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirection

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why does WP:(any number) redirect to a portal?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 15:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Acute need for improvement of Portal:Contents/Portals

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I've raised the issue of the Portal:Contents/Portals layout and design before (see Icons above), but now I feel the problem is more acute as it was neglected for so long and is starting to affect all portals, as readers simply use the portals less and less to find articles of interest. The page views history shows a clear drop from 250,000 views per month in 2008 to ca 150,000 now (median). And I think the reason is that the layout is not attractive and well structured enough. A simple comparison with the same page on the French, German and Spanish Wikipedias reveals that these not only look much better and are easier to use but indeed have more visitors (in absolute numbers and much more as proportion of all visitors). Maybe is worth raising the issue at the Village Pump. However, if feedback is provided on the minor improvement proposals, we could go ahead with a step by step approach. --Elekhh (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that it's time for a rethink, but I don't have much time to invest myself (too many other projects on the go).
I would tentatively suggest that the first thing needed, is a cleanup of the existing portals. There are too many unfinished or utterly neglected portals listed there. Once they were trimmed down (moved to Category:Portals under construction) it might be easier to see what actually needs to be incorporated. Getting the portal project participants to do a major spring-cleaning, might be the best way to handle that? Not sure. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a separate issue. There are currently 583 portals on the English Wiki, but 943 on the French, yet the French main portals page is much better organised and easy to navigate. So while I agree that there are many quality issues with individual portals, I think the main problem is that of the whole system decaying in part due to the slightly chaotic appearance of the main page. If you would comment on the proposals I made above I would volunteer to implement these on a step by step basis. I think any action is beter than no action and further delay. --Elekhh (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, nobody else has been investing energy here lately, so I'd say feel free :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the Culture and the Arts section only for testing. Let me know if is better than previous version, otherwise pls feel free to revert. --Elekhh (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Outlines

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

User:Verbal seems to be trying to divert traffic away from the outline subpage of this portal by removing links to it. He even removed its entry from this page, where the outline collection page has had a link since April 2005 (back when it was called Wikipedia:Basic topics).

He appears to be engaged in a campaign of Wikipedia:tendentious editing against outlines.

There is no valid basis for his attempts to remove the Outline of Knowledge from the contents system. He explained his reasons for removing outlines from the contents system at Talk:Outline of rights.

He also removed the link to the Outline of Knowledge from the navigation menu bar at the top of the contents page.

I have reverted his removal of the outline set's link/entry on this page and on the navigation bar at the top of the page.

The Transhumanist 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not disruptive, please assume good faith. Please demonstrate community consensus for oulines to be part of wikipedia's content system. Note that they are not in any wikipedia policy or guideline on lists or organisational structures. Outlines should be added to those first (by community consensus) before being added to any other derivative. Verbal chat 10:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As topic lists, they've been part of the contents system since April 2005. Removing them without consensus is disruptive. Also, the Portal:Contents was built via collaboration, including its various subpages (of which Outline of Knowledge is one). To disallow a portal's subpage to be presented on the portal's main page defeats the purpose of having the subpage in the first place - there is no consensus to delete or delink the Outline portion of this portal. I've restored the entry and the link to Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. The Transhumanist 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with topic lists, as they would be part of WP:LISTS. Please get consensus for the goals and activities of your very small project in the usual way, as you have been told to at ANI and elsewhere. Verbal chat 10:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the Outline of Knowledge is incorrectly capitalized, seriously incomplete, and worse of all seriously unbalanced (i.e., if you happen to have an outline, you're in, otherwise your not: importance of topics plays no role, only availability as an outline), I would suggest keeping it of the main portal:contents page until it is much improved and has a consensus for inclusion. The more general problem of the consensus for (or against) outlines in general is a separate discussion we shouldn't be having here. Fram (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I oppose removing the Outline of knowledge link from here. Firstly, poor quality is hardly a reason to not include the link ("quality" is highly opinionated anyways, I think they're great) because the spirit of Wikipedia is that nothing is perfect and there should always be improvements. By popularizing this, the OOK will receive many more edits to improve it. Secondly, the Outline of Knowledge is a standard feature of encyclopedias, in fact, Britanica, has one named the same thing: Outline of Knowledge. The reason the Outline of Knowledge is included in encyclopedias are because it provides a extremely helpful navigational aide. A link to our Outline of Knowledge would naturally fall under our site contents page (where it was). -- penubag  (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You readd the link because it was here since 2005, and yet you claim that "By popularizing this, the OOK will receive many more edits to improve it." It seems that this is wishful thinking and hasn't really happened though. The Portal:Contents gets over 600,000 page views a month, which is massive. In the same month, Outline of Knowledge got some 12000 page views. But there have been no actual additions, contentchanges to the page since mid 2008. As for contents, you may think it is great, but when there is only one specific example of "culture" given, James Bond, one has to wonder where all the other famous characters and franchises are. And that only three philospohoies are listed, Anarchism • Humanism • Transhumanism, is only because the main promoter of these outlines is also the main promotor (on Wikipedia) of this very young philosophy transhumanism. No outline for journalims, or tabloid journalism, but one for "environmental journalism"? We have links to Outline of Arizona territorial evolution and the like, which aren't outlines at all, just articles, but nothing for the history outside the US at all. This is, like I said, a severely unbalanced list of topics, decided not by what are the major topics (this would be, dspite its defaults, Portal:Contents/Overviews), but by the availability of an outline. To include this is bad, to include this as the very first item is serious overkill and self-promotion by the Transhumanist. Note that e.g. on Portal:Contents/Overviews, transhumanism is one of the 35 orso schools of philosophy, not one of the three listed philosophies. The overviews page is the one that should get the most attention, as it is a good, balanced, complete page of everything important, not of just those subjects that happen to have an outline. Fram (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Fram,

There have been many outlines added since mid 2008. They are added two levels down, at the subsubpage level. The main Outline of Knowledge page, as with all of the first-level subpages of Portal:Contents, are templatized - the subsubpages are called via double curlies (template calls), and are displayed via inclusion on the first-level subpage - if you view the source of Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge, you will see zero outlines listed there. This is the way it is done with all the branches of the Contents Portal: for glossaries, portals, topic lists, etc.

Also, the contents of the outlines themselves are under continuous improvement - there are so many edits each day on the watchlist of these, that a single individual can no longer keep up with them.

The Transhumanist 19:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose the removal of the link to the Outline of Knowledge subpage. There is no consensus to remove it, and the subpage was created via the collaboration of editors who built this portal. Delinking a subpage from a portal disrupts or dismantles the portal. There is no consensus to disable this portal or any part of it. Verbal, please achieve such consensus before removing the link again. The Transhumanist 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Pages like Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Philosophy and thinking haven't been added to in a year. Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Geography and places has had one link added in a year. When you want a link to be included on one of the most visited and highest profile pages of Wikipedia, it should be of the best quality, presenting a fair and balanced view of our articles. To put it as the first link peole see was serious overkill and overemphasized this work in progress. The current position of the link is at least a step in the right direction. Fram (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the subsystems listed here are works in progress. None of them except perhaps the category system are comprehensive, and categories have other problems. Featured articles, for example couldn't be considered to be "fair and balanced", as it includes more listings on sport and recreation than on business, economics, finance, chemistry, computing, health, law, mathematics, psychology, and philosophy combined!
Regardless of the current completeness of the collections of various types of pages on Wikipedia, readers still need a contents page for each of them to help them find their way around what is available. For each type of page, there are readers who wish to navigate (find or browse) them, including featured articles and outlines. There isn't a good reason to exclude a type of Wikipedia content from the contents system - if it is included in Wikipedia, then readers will want easy access to it. That's the whole point of these navigation pages, regardless of the completeness of the types of pages presented. Wikipedia itself is incomplete, but a table of contents of a partial encyclopedia still allows us to find our way around that incomplete work.
The Transhumanist 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
But outlines are not a "type of Wikipedia content", outlines are pointers to our content, but inferior ones (compared to the overviews). Featured articles are not included for their completeness, but for displaying the quality of our best works. That Wikipedia is incomplete is not disputed but hardly relevant. A complete index to an incomplete encyclopedia is good: an incomplete, unbalanced index to the same is not good. Fram (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My 2¢. The links to the main Outline listing belong here (and in the 2 navbars), but do not deserve to be first in those listings. I've moved the link down the page (to below Topic Lists, where it used to be), and shortened the description. I would suggest doing something similar with the 2 navbars. (FYI, I brought this up days ago at User talk:Karanacs#Outline goings-on, but discussing it there isn't helping, so let's try to keep it here, please).
I think one of the main reasons that some editors became so frustrated with the Outlineproject, was the brief experiment with adding hatnotes to the top of articles. This is a similar issue, relating to overpromotion. TT: please stop selling these goslings as if they were fully-grown geese - some are good, many are mediocre, many are barely started.
Finally. We still need input & thought at the RfC or WikiProject pages, concerning Scope (how big does a topic have to be, in order to warrant an Outline?) and Direction (what format should outlines have, which itself will determine where in namespace they belong).
I still believe the overarching issues (similarities) summarized at User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft, need to be thoroughly understood before we can properly deal with the specifics of outlines. Please, please, please, read/absorb/contemplate/grok that page (and it's many links). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Template talk:Contents pages (header bar) redirects to here (this talk page).

Verbal has removed the Outline of Knowledge link from the menu at the top of this page. There is no consensus to remove it, and he has been continuing to remove it anyways in the face of opposition.

The menu includes links to all of the subpages of this portal. One of those subpages is the Outline of Knowledge. Verbal has not given a good reason as to why the Outline of Knowledge page should be delinked from its parent portal's subpage menu.

Verbal, please stop edit warring and restore the link until there is consensus to remove it.

The Transhumanist 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the Transhumanist on this one. Leave it in.Greg Bard 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the lack of consensus for this project and the fact it is not a recognised form of navigation article, the link should be removed until the RfC has been held - and then the matter should be revisited. Also, see discussion above. Verbal chat 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
WikiProjects do not need consensus in order to exist - people just create them. It requires consensus to close WikiProjects down (by deleting them at AfD), but not to start them. Pre-approval is not the way Wikipedia operates - Wikipedia encourages and is built upon personal initiative.

Lists are a recognized form of navigation article, and outlines are a type of list. This type of list (outlines) predate the naming of them as outlines by many years. That is, they've been on Wikipedia since the beginning, but we started calling them "Outlines" a couple years ago. So yes, they are recognized and have a strong tradition on Wikipedia.

Verbal, you are outvoted here. You have failed to achieve consensus for the removal of the Outline of Knowledge link. To argue that it needs consensus in the first place, when the first place was years ago, is just a way to get around the consensus guideline, and if this tactic were applied everywhere by everyone it would lead to a breakdown of the Wikipedia community. All of Wikipedia could be vetoed into oblivion. If we allow you to use this fallacious reasoning on outlines, there would be nothing to stop you from applying it to glossaries, to topic lists, to timelines, etc. etc., none of which achieved consensus in order to exist.

Since there is no consensus to remove the link, I'm restoring it, per this discussion. The Transhumanist 19:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion has also appeared on User talk:Karanacs#Outline goings-on, where Quiddity posted his concerns about Verbal's recent activities:

...in the last 24 hours, Verbal has deleted all mention of Outlines from Portal:Contents, Template:Contents pages (header bar), and Template:Contents pages (footer box), which doesn't seem reasonable. I'm not sure how to deal with this - I'm trying to stay somewhat neutral, so have not reverted those 3 edits. Verbal seems like an otherwise very decent editor, but the Outline set is still being treated as a battleground.

There's a definite pattern emerging here.

The Transhumanist 20:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Four days full protection

Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

You all know the drill, if consensus is reached earlier, come ping me and it can be unprotected the 96 hours runs out. Courcelles (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the RfC is either run in the next four days, or outlines are removed from this portal. Verbal chat 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I oppose Verbal's suggestion.

First, if Verbal wants the RfC (a propoasal to move all outlines to be sub-sub-pages of this portal), then he should make the proposal himself rather than trying to coerce other people into it. Lack of the RfC (move proposal) is a poor excuse for disconnecting the Outline of Knowledge subpage from its parent portal and its parent portal's menus. He's basically saying "because you haven't proposed that the outlines be moved, the link to them should be removed." He wants them deleted, and moving them out of the main namespace would have almost the same effect, as would delinking (orphanizing) them. So his demand boils down to "you aren't helping me to delete this system, therefore it should be deleted." Utter nonsense.

Second, his disruptive anti-outline antics (traffic-derailing by removing links, tagging menus, blanking sections of outlines, blanking and redirecting entire outlines, etc.) lack consensus.

Third, most of his arguments make no sense, and are pure rhetoric. Take a look at his edit summaries.

Fourth, and most revealing about Verbal's attitude and intentsions, is that he admits that some outlines are useful, yet he opposes our developing the rest of them to that quality level, calling this work-in-progress "a waste", even though he values the end goal (the quality-level we are shooting for). Instead, he has been wasting developers' time and effort by forcing them into damage control to fix problems that he has been purposefully causing.

The Transhumanist 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
(system crash, returning a couple hours later....) I agree with Verbal; there being no evidence that there was ever consensus for the name "Outline" outside of the project, and little evidence that the reorganization done by the project had support outside of the project, the results of WikiProject Outline should not be linked from the main Portal:Contents. I would be willing to have it remain (without being disputed) if an RfC is in progress. Furthermore, even if Verbal agrees that some of the Outline articles have merit, that does not imply that the project, as a whole, does not do more harm than good. I believe it (the project) does more harm than good, as I noted at an WP:ANI discussion where you also attacked Verbal's actions, and I'm not convinced it should be linked from a top-level portal, nor that that there was ever consensus that it should be linked from a top-level portal. I would have little object to a Portal:Outline not linked from this portal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wise words from Arthur there. I find it interesting that I'm being painted by TT as both the saviour and destroyer of "outlines". I would support a separate "outline" portal (though the good ones should be reintegrated into the current WP:LIST structures). A better solution might be to follow Britannia and have the outlines as a separate wiki, such as wiktionary, simple English wikipedia, wikiquote, etc. They clearly do not belong here. Verbal chat 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Outlines were included in this portal even before they were renamed to outlines, and even before the Outline WikiProject existed. Just because they've been renamed isn't a good reason to remove them - they're still list articles and navigation aids. They've been part of the portal since the portal existed, by consensus of the collaborative effort that built the portal.

Being a branch of Wikipedia's navigation system almost as numerous as portals, I believe it would take a discussion in a wider venue than this rarely-visited talk page to remove it from this portal. Removing the outline subpage that lists over 500 navigation pages (that cumulatively include tens of thousands of links), is a pretty big change to be decided in a discussion involving so few editors.
The Transhumanist 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it would have required a wider venue than this rarely-visited talk page to add it to this portal; removal (from a portal) should require less effort. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't added, it was part of the original portal, for which no wider discussion was held on any of the subpages included - just collaborative editing. Eventually, by popular decision at the Village Pump, the portal, along with all of its subpages, was added to Wikipedia's navigation menu that appears on every page of Wikipedia. You are basically talking about dismantling the navigation system that the community placed as the second link on Wikipedia's main menu. Therefore, a much wider venue than this casual discussion under this obscurely-named subheading on this low-traffic talk page is called for to remove any of this portal's subpages. The Transhumanist 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
See the history of this page for confirmation, eg this April 2005 diff was when the outlines (Basic topics) were added to this page, back when this portal was named [Wikipedia:Category schemes]. This is long before TT or I started editing this area of Wikipedia. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to outlines, which are almost entirely TTs pet project. Verbal chat 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What?? The outlines, are ALL just renamed "basic topic lists". All of them. See this diff as a random pagemove example of the main listing. Outlines = Basic topic lists, but renamed.
You know this, and hence are trying to move pages back to their old names. Why are you saying the history is irrelevant?! -- Quiddity (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Outlines are not part of the supported List structure. Either name them back to the supported list structure and we can get on with reintegrating and fixing them, or stop claiming that outlines have been always here and well supported - that s not true. The controversial rename should not have happened and took these pages out of consensus supported navigational pages. Also, they are not "all" renamed lists. Outlines have never had any substantial support. Verbal chat 08:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, rename them all back to "List of basic x topics". I'm completely fine with that, as I keep saying! I'll support any move-request proposal, made in an appropriate venue.
However, I still don't understand why you have such hatred for a page titled "Outline of mathematics", but not for the same page titled "List of topics in mathematics" or "List of basic mathematics topics".
I agree that TT has put his stamp all over the descriptions at the wikiproject page and talkpages everywhere, but that's not a good reason for such anger towards a naming convention.
Have you seen the Schaum's Outlines book series published by McGraw-Hill since the 1950s? Look inside Schaum's Outline of College Physics, 10th edition at amazon, and 80 other titles, many used in (respected) University courses (eg [1], [2]). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, those do not resemble what are called outlines here, in that those have at least a sentence or two at each point, rather than links. Schaum's "outlines" could be a project in Wikibooks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The word itself covers a range of definitions, from book-length outlines like Schaums', down to very concise structured-lists. see screenshots. (Software to build them are called Outliners, and the items they construct are described at Outline (summary). Those two articles are only stub/start quality though).
I was mentioning Schaum's primarily because Verbal (and a number of other editors) seem to fundamentally dislike the word "Outline". (Some dislike the potentially pun-like combinations (eg. Outline of Japan), and some just aren't familiar with the word, and some possibly for other reasons that haven't been mentioned recently?).
I really don't have strong feelings about the title. I just want to improve and discuss the content of them. The earlier title convention "List of basic foo topics" seems fine to me. (With that said... I do submit that the word Outline has precedent, and is shorter, and is more easily distinguished from indexes (eg "List of mathematics articles") and list-of-lists (eg "Lists of mathematics topics").
Please (please!) look at the good examples of outlines: Outline of cell biology (as compiled primarily by User:Earthdirt, a highschool biology teacher), and Outline of anarchism, and a few others.
I really do want people to discuss the bad quality BasicOutlines, and the direction they should be headed in, but we can't do that unless we can all acknowledge the good ones, and use them as positive examples. YesNoMaybe? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What we need to do first is fix or remove the clear copyright violations (even those easily repairable), and move the bad outlines out of article-space. By "bad outlines", I mean those which are simply abstracted from the corresponding article, or consist only of templated links, many of them red. (Almost all "Outline of <country>" articles are one or both of these, which is how I first became aware of the problems, in the Outline of Kosovo ANI thread. (As a further aside, Outline of Kosovo is still a sea of red-links, and an NPOV violation, as it still implies it's a country.)) I suggest that those who want the outlines to be a viable project work on that first, rather than attempting to make improvements in existing outlines. I think we agree that the vast majority of "outline of ..." articles are bad. If we remove the bad, but easily regenerable "Outlines" entirely, we can discuss which of the remaining ones have a place in Wikipedia, and whether the project does more harm (creating stubs which will never be expanded) than good.
The discussion of the names of the articles should be separate from the discussion of namespace or whether they should be linked, but there's clearly no consensus about the names of the articles or of the project.
Furthermore, there's no good space for discussion. I now feel that the project's talk page is not an appropriate place for this discussion. It certainly isn't here. But where should it be?
I still feel that the project should not be linked from the "main" Portal; discussion of that is appropriate here, but not really helpful unless the scope of the project is determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: Given the replies above, about its precedent and normal viability, what is your perspective now regarding "Outline of x" as a naming convention? And if not that, then which is your preferred alternative naming format? (We've previously had these four -- Economics basic topics, List of basic economics topics, Topical outline of economics, Outline of economics. Different editors have had complaints about each.) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Related discovery: I just stumbled upon Template:Editnotices/Page/Canada, which is an interesting use for an outline. So these BasicOutlines are definitely serving a few different needs... -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding discussion fragmentation: I think the main editors who know the relevant points, are involved in or watching the discussions. If you and Verbal and I and Fram and anyone else watching the threads here and at the RfC draft page, can come to a good preliminary understanding on the fundamentals/history/objective-truths/subjective-opinions, then we should be able to determine what issues can be decided between us, and what issues need a wider (Villagepump size) discussion. More comments later. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To talk of many things

Regarding the Move Proposal (RfC) - making that proposal is the burden of whoever wants the articles moved. Verbal is understandably reluctant to present a move proposal, as such a proposal is unlikely to achieve consensus. As for moving any of the articles out of article space before the RfC is concluded, I am opposed to that - that is the purpose of the RfC/Move Proposal in the first place, and this low-traffic behind-the-scenes backwater discussion is not a sufficient venue for such a large move.

The outlines should be worked on and improved where they are. Stubs only have potential if they have accessibility/traffic/exposure. If they are moved out of article space, they won't be doing readers any good, and the editors needed to work on them will be unlikely to come across them.

Concerning the work that needs to be done to them, most of the redlinks are of article names likely to be created in the future, and many of them are covered in a section somewhere for which a pipe or redirect will work. Those links that aren't likely to turn blue in the future can easily be removed.

With respect to renaming the articles, such a course should be discussed in a better trafficked venue than here, as it involves hundreds of articles. The articles have been named "Outlines" for almost a year, and changing them without establishing community consensus would be highly disruptive. As for reverting to a previous name, almost all of the pages have grown beyond the scope of "basic topics" lists. They are much more comprehensive than "basic" now.

The Transhumanist 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. I feel that (most of the) outlines should never have been in article space, and that there is not and has never been consensus for their being in article space, and so they should not be in article space. Who has the "burden of proof" for that discussion is not clear.
  2. For, at least, the Outline of ''country'' articles, the redlinks are likely to remain red or sub-stubs for years to come. Furthermore, the "burden of proof" that the content is appropriate lies on the editor inserting the content, not the editor deleting the content. (In other words, for each red link, there needs to be justification that there's some specfic reason for the article to be created, or the link should be deleted.) If these were considered to be navigational templates, then all redlinks should be removed.
  3. Even if the "outlines" should be in article space, there was never a consensus for the name, so the "burden of proof" is not necessarily against the editors who want them moved. Certainly List of topics in mathematics should not be moved to "outline of mathematics" without a specific consensus. I agree a better forum than this talk page is appropriate, but the previous apparent consensus was "established" on the wrong Wikipedia:Village pump page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, there doesn't need to be consensus to create a prose article, or a list article, regardless of what it is named. Outlines, that is, articles which are structured lists (and there are a lot more of them than those named "Outline of"), fall under the list guidelines. Verbal says that they aren't covered there, but he fixates on the titles, rather than on the fact that the contents are entirely lists. Articles whose contents are lists are known as stand-alone lists. ALL STAND-ALONE list articles in the encyclopedia, regardless of what they are called, fall under WP:STAND and WP:LIST.
Anybody can create an article within article space on any subject, and of any type including prose articles, structured lists, alphabetical lists, tables, glossaries, timelines, etc. without getting prior approval. The vast majority of articles for which the contents are an outline (a structured list), were created in article space and aren't even called outlines, or were written in draft space and were subsequently moved to article space. They've been in article space a long time. The proper procedure for removing them from the encyclopedia altogether would be WP:AfD, and to move them to another namespace the appropriate process would be to submit a move proposal to the community (such as at the Village Pump).
Also, it is not "burden of proof" which I have been discussing. I have been talking about the burden of making the proposal to move them out of article space. Verbal wants me to write the proposal to move them to the location of his choice, but that would violate WP:POINT (since I don't want them moved).
Most of the outlines were drafted in or for article space, and to move an entire class of article out of article space takes a proposal in a wide forum. To move a large batch of articles without a well-established consensus, will likely get the mass-mover(s) blocked (the same as with mass renames). I once renamed about 30 articles, and got tarred and feathered for it.
Going way beyond currently accepted protocol, to disallow articles to be created in article space, forces an approval process upon editors, and Wikipedia has no approval process for articles - you just click and start writing. That's a core design feature of wikis and Wikipedia. To establish an approval process for articles, such as structured list articles, would require a pretty big ordeal, like the time we redesigned the main page (over 1000 editors showed up to vote on that one).
A factor which has made this issue more complex is that many of the articles were renamed to their current name. And "move" is another word for "rename". But that is a separate issue from moving them to a different namespace. The main reason they were renamed was because they outgrew the scope of the previous name configuration: "List of basic X topics". Most of the "Outline of" articles, and most of the outlines that are named something else, go way beyond being basic topics lists. There's very little that is basic about them.
A further problem is that there are two types of topics lists: structured lists (outlines) and alphabetical lists (indexes). Many of the "List of X topics" names are taken up by indexes. One solution would be to rename those to "Index of X" (and over 600 of them are called that), reserving the "List of X topics" naming convention for structured topics lists. But the word "Outline" is more indicative of what the article contains than the general nomer "List", because it signifies what type of list it is, in the same way that "Index" lets the readers know what they will be looking at when they click on it. Click on an index, you see an index. Click on an outline, you see an outline. But click on a "list", and you may see an outline, or an index, or a table, etc. "List" is a grab bag, or a surprise package. The title should more accurately describe what the contents of the list is.
Another problem with renaming them now is that the set has grown beyond the scope of abstract topics such as fields of study and countries, and now includes growing number of concrete subjects such as sharks, chocolate, and festivals. To name them as topic lists requires that the word "related" be added to the titles, like this: List of chocolate-related topics, List of festival-related topics, List of shark-related topics. Those are bulky titles, with 5 words each! Compare with the 3-word variations: Outline of chocolate, Outline of sharks, and Outline of festivals. Cleaner and more compact.
Moving on to another of your concerns, the articles weren't written to be purely navigational. They present the structure of the subjects they cover and are therefore informational as well. They also include annotations, sections leads, pictures, picture captions, etc. Therefore, they belong in article space the same as other lists.
The main problem we are having with development currently is that Verbal is taking up so much of the developers' time with his anti-outline campaign. We've been occupied primarily with repairing the outline system of the damage of his attacks, and we've had little time left to improve the outlines. Hundreds of hours have gone into this insane war of his, hours which could have been spent improving the outlines.
The Transhumanist 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the last paragraph,(it's obviously more complicated than just 1 editor, but please let's not get into that) I can confirm almost everything explained above, with diffs of examples. It's a good description of some of the prior decisions that have been made, and the ramifications of some possible future-decisions.
It's very long, but almost entirely accurate. I beg and beseech anyone paying attention to this thread, to re-read that sucker until it seems clear. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If accurate, the articles should not be moved without a consensus, but the navigational links in this article and related portals should not have been named "outline" without there having been a consensus. The only consensus TT has pointed to in the past was a limited consensus from an inappropriate WP:Village pump subpage, and a consensus from his project.
For the name, I think "list of X-related topics" is the only rational standardized name: outline of Kosovo (which, again, was how I first found this dispute) and outline of geometry are clearly absurd names. "Outline of chocolate" is sufficiently unambiguous, but outline of ''country'' is not. (I'm not at all sure about outline of sharks. I suppose the related geometric concept would be outlines of sharks, which may be sufficiently different to avoid ambiguity.)
The articles also shouldn't have been bulk-created; most outline of ''country'' articles are a good example of articles with potential content (at least according to TT), but no present content. That's not exactly grounds for deletion, but it has been considered such in the past. It's certainly grounds for blocking the editors responsible for the bulk creation. Furthermore, as I noted above, outline of ''disputed country'' shouldn't have "national" links, red or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
All of the country outlines have content. Being topic outlines, their content is topics. Most of them are topic outlines as opposed to sentence outlines - that is, they are structured topic lists. Please list the ones that you believe have no topics (content).
All countries share the same subtopic tree structure and share topics further down the tree. It made no sense to build these all by hand. To see the sets of country subarticles that have emerged on Wikipedia, see User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country, and click on each link provided. We identified emerging sets, and created links corresponding to them for each country, since they may be filled in the future. We also found that more than a few of the emerging sets are fed by article splitting, with the future articles existing before the split as a subsection of another article. Therefore, many of the redlinks in the emerging sets can be turned blue with a sectional redirect leading to the sections that cover the subject of the links. When the sections are split off, they can be pasted over the redirects.
The problem with "List of X-related topics" is that structured lists (outlines) and alphabetical lists (indexes) compete for that name convention, making it not only more ambiguous than "Outline of", but also causing a physical conflict between two sets of articles. What do you name the articles when you have both an index and an outline for the same subject? "Outline" is more specific and contextually accurate than "list", and its use currently solves the problem of clashing list titles.
The Transhumanist 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "Outline" as a convention, I agree that it has ambiguity in some cases, however, see Schaum's Outline of Geometry. And furthermore: Outline of American Geography - America.gov, and Education sites: [3], [4], [5], and book titles: An outline geography of Africa. By Harold Reginald Jarrett 1962, An outline geography of Liberia. By Willi Schulze 1963, Outline of history and geography. By Montagu H. Foster 1884, Great outline of geography for high schools and families. By Theodore Sedgwick Fay 1868, Naylor's system of teaching geography: adapted to Pelton's outline maps 1848. And many many more.
I can completely agree that it isn't perfect, but I really hope we can get past the "clearly absurd" point of view.
Again, I don't object to potentially moving pages back to the old naming convention, but I do still believe that the suggested naming scheme is far clearer, than what we currently have:
  Current title Suggested title
List of just lists Lists of mathematics topics Lists of mathematics topics
alphabetical index List of mathematics articles Index of mathematics articles
structured list List of topics in mathematics Outline of mathematics
Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I like it - whole heartedly agree with 'index of ...' makes so much sense. This conversation is still going on under '4 days pprotection' could some one split/retitle it to something more apt? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents/Archive_5&oldid=925938410"