Talk:Outline of Wisconsin
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources and copyedit tags[edit]
I checked other state outline articles, and none of them had sources. While I applaud Verbal for his concern with citing information, the tag seems like overkill. An outline contains no information to be cited, but is just a navigational aid to other articles. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm heavily involved with the "outlines project" and that is not true. They require sourcing. Verbal chat 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I checked out a dozen or so outlines before removing the tag. I didn't find a single one that had a source. I'm just curious -since there are no "facts" in an outline, just phrases navigating one to articles (where there are facts that need sources), I'm wondering how an outline can be sourced. How do you source the phrases "Crime in Michigan" or "Atlas of Arizona"? I'm also curious about the copyedit tag you placed on the Outline of Wisconsin. The entire article contains only one complete sentence. What needs copyediting?75.6.10.220 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm heavily involved with the "outlines project" and that is not true. They require sourcing. Verbal chat 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- All articles require sourcing, and wikipedia is not a reliable source (ie blue links are not good enough). So for things link location, population, government etc we need WP:RS. A lot of outlines were unfortunately created that do not follow good practice (in fact the name "outline" doesn't) and we are trying to address this. (I moved this back here to keep discussion in one place) Verbal chat 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree entirely about the need for reliable sources. I just don't get how you can source the outline item "Demographics," for example. If it said "The population of Sad State is 999,999,999" it would need a source. But the items in an outline aren't statements of fact; they're just phrases. Since you're citing policy here it might be easier if you could just refer me to the policy, guideline, or discussion that covers this, rather than repeating it here. Thanks. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please log in to your account, if you have one. Thanks. All statements of fact require sourcing. All statements of fact are "phrases". If an article contains nothing that requires sourcing then that article contains nothing encyclopaedic, and should be improved or deleted. Verbal chat 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added some cn tags, also note the entire history section is a prime example of unsourced information. Verbal chat 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that you have an opinion on this, but I was really looking for Wikipedia's policy on whether outlines require sources. By the logic that articles containing nothing encyclopedic should be improved or deleted, then all disambiguation pages should be sourced or deleted. That doesn't make any sense. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids. Outlines are, too. BTW, I'm moving this conversation to the article's talk page, where everyone who looks at the outline can find the reason for the tags. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Outlines are articles. They are not exempt from the normal rules of sourcing. Verbal chat 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The normal rules of sourcing say that facts and quotes require sources. Aside from the few reference items in this outline (which you've already tagged), there are no facts in it. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Outlines are articles. They are not exempt from the normal rules of sourcing. Verbal chat 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that you have an opinion on this, but I was really looking for Wikipedia's policy on whether outlines require sources. By the logic that articles containing nothing encyclopedic should be improved or deleted, then all disambiguation pages should be sourced or deleted. That doesn't make any sense. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids. Outlines are, too. BTW, I'm moving this conversation to the article's talk page, where everyone who looks at the outline can find the reason for the tags. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added some cn tags, also note the entire history section is a prime example of unsourced information. Verbal chat 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please log in to your account, if you have one. Thanks. All statements of fact require sourcing. All statements of fact are "phrases". If an article contains nothing that requires sourcing then that article contains nothing encyclopaedic, and should be improved or deleted. Verbal chat 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree entirely about the need for reliable sources. I just don't get how you can source the outline item "Demographics," for example. If it said "The population of Sad State is 999,999,999" it would need a source. But the items in an outline aren't statements of fact; they're just phrases. Since you're citing policy here it might be easier if you could just refer me to the policy, guideline, or discussion that covers this, rather than repeating it here. Thanks. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- All articles require sourcing, and wikipedia is not a reliable source (ie blue links are not good enough). So for things link location, population, government etc we need WP:RS. A lot of outlines were unfortunately created that do not follow good practice (in fact the name "outline" doesn't) and we are trying to address this. (I moved this back here to keep discussion in one place) Verbal chat 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Redlinks[edit]
OK, now I'm wondering about the reason for the cleanup tag. The edit summary referred only to redlinks ("still doesn't meet MOS, full of redlinks"). But I don't see anywhere in the Manual of Style that redlinks are not allowed. In fact, it says 'If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be "fixed". Red links should be removed only if they point to articles that are unlikely ever to be created' and that "many red links are perfectly legitimate, serving to point to an article which may exist in the future, and indeed encouraging editors to create such an article." All the redlinks I see in the outline seem like potential articles. 75.6.10.220 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Actual Outline[edit]
Wisconsin's outline is often considered hand with the thumb being Door County Peninsula. Also the state is said to appear as a Native American, with the face looking left and facial features being given by the Mississippi River. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.34.100 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines[edit]
"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)