Talk:Outline of knowledge

Name
There is no community consensus for "outline of" naming, whereas lists are supported by policy, guidelines and consensus. Unless some kind of consensus is demonstrated I will revert this list back to the standard "list" naming. Verbal chat  05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Then let's get the community in on a discussion...


 * The Transhumanist 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called
A discussion is underway that may affect the name of this article.

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines

The Transhumanist 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge List of academic disciplines with Outline of knowledge
Strongly Oppose The scope of List of academic disciplines is narrower than Outline of knowledge and serves a very specific and practical purpose. The logical approach is for the latter to link to the former as a main article. -- Palaeovia talk 21:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Strongly Oppose List of academic disciplines is a classification to articles very useful for those familiar with academe. (I had just independently added a wikilink to Outline of knowledge which I see was also suggested by the previous comment). 121.45.223.144 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also opposed. Clearly different scopes of article. —Quiddity (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Opposed. Quiddity is right, the scopes don't match. "Knowledge" is much wider in scope than "academic disciplines", which applies to fields taught and studied in academia. The Transhumanist 02:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree I see no reason for this article in the first place. IMO "Outline of Knowledge" is way too vague a concept to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Its inevitably going to be OR and the opinions of one or a few people, not something that has any consensus in any one community. To the extent there is anything of value in this article I think merging it into another article would make much more sense than keeping it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
"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 Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Undergoing annotation - please help
Outlines are much more useful when the entries include descriptive annotations. I've completed annotating the section Types of knowledge. Please feel free to fill in the rest. The Transhumanist 05:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Title of article overlaps another article
There is another article: Propædia that currently has an alias: "Outline of Knowledge" (with a capital K rather than a small k). So if you search and type "Outline of know" you see two articles, this one with a small "k" and the other one with a capital "K". Something needs to be done to resolve that. I don't think this article should even exist so my recommendation would be to move this content into one or several other articles and then delete it and also to change the Propædia alias so that it is consistent with Wikipedia standards and uses a small "k" as this article currently does. But whatever the resolution I think something must be done so that there aren't two articles that differ only in capitalization, that's very confusing to naive users. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing it to Outline about knowledge. The Transhumanist 01:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Harv errors
There were four Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation messages in the References section, which I can see because I have one of the widgets installed. I was able to fix the first since there was enough context to locate the source, but the other three only have last name and year:


 * 5. Pickett 2006
 * 9. Kelly 2009
 * 11. Adams 2003

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)