Talk:Outline of water



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Verbal chat  15:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline of water → List of water topics —
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

But it was a controversial move. As you had every reason to believe it would be contested. The Transhumanist 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List
As this is a list, per community practise, consensus, guidelines and policy this should be a list article. Please demonstate some form of consensus for naming this an "outline" the water project or in the general community. Verbal chat  09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice the introduction, the heirarchical style, the references, the templates (I could go on). If you want to move this to List of water topics, then add a move request rather than just doing it - that way you could get a consensus. Highfields (talk, contribs) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. You talk about consensus, but you havent got consensus to move it yet either, at least if you say there is no consensus for outlines then prove it here.


 * There are consensus, policy and guidelines in support of lists, but not outlines. The recent debates at WP:OUTLINE, that failed to reach policy status, and at relevant projects has been against this non-standard naming. Please demonstrate community support for this renaming. Verbal chat  15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the move to "List of water topics" and Support renaming it back to its original name: "Outline of water" - this is an outline with OOK formatting. It was designed specifically for the WP:OOK.  Unilaterally moving pages from that collection is disruptive and was done by Verbal without consensus.  The Transhumanist 04:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OOK formatting is apparently against WP:MOS, and list names are supported by consensus guidelines and policy. Please overturn those. Verbal chat  05:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I second TT's proposal, but I'm willing to keep the status quo, like I was willing to let the page be moved in the first place (eventually), until a proper binding consensus agreement on outlines is made, preferably by RfC. Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose the change, and suggest moving the title back to outline. Apparently, this adiminstrator acted alone on the move, and did so without consensus. See WP:Outlines, consensus is there to convert these types of topic lists into outlines.   Burningview    ✉  22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move of the outline. It should remain an outline. -- penubag  (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the use of the "lists" title format as this title is very vague and ambiguous in English. It just doesn't sound right. Adding a word to the end (Outline of water topics) would help, but "list" is unambiguous. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose -Enough consensus has amassed since my last comment but I stand by it Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Lists are supported by policy. Also there are many editors in a lot of different locations questioning the use of outlines.  Until outlines get a community wide consensus I think it would be best to wait until a community decision is made. There should be one location that is highly visable to get wider community input.  I also don't think that 'lists' should be renamed to outlines.  During my reading about this I have found that a lot of the outlines were originally in list formats.  I just noticed that this has already been considered a consensus and an administrator has already acted upon this.  This is the second time this has happened to me, the last one only lasted 3 days before it was relisted as a outline.  Well I'm still leaving this, please give enough time for editors to find and iVote on the different issues.  Thanks,  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

editprotected
editprotected Per community consensus above, please move List of water topics back to Outline of water. The original move protection was done in a very controversial way. The original page was created as an outline, but User:Verbal moved it to a list, and others reverted over 3 times and after which, User:Verbal asks for this page to be move protected. The protecting admin did not look into this matter very deeply and protected the page. Please view move logs as evidence. -- penubag  (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Jake   Wartenberg  00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Object. This is nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also object, this is just a pile on from the outline project. Community consensus is for lists. Unless consensus is established this page will probably be moved back to "list". Verbal chat  08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, perhaps you'd like to read the section above, Verbal. Finally someone talking sense, thank you Jake Wartenberg Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you count the number of "votes" on each side and tell me how this shows consensus? Can you tell me which arguments are supported by polices, guidelines, and consensus - and which aren't (hint, lists are supported by policies, guidelines, and consensus) Verbal chat  16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree lists are supported by policies, guidlines, and long-held consensus. However, Verbal, TOPIC lists HAVE gained consensus through various means of discussion this year to be converted into outlines. Topic lists are what we're talking about here not just typical lists, and it's what WP:WPOOK has achieved consenus on to convert into outlines. I suggest you go to the WP:WPOOK page and click on the "arguments over outlines" link; there you can educate yourself and get a glimpse of all the past arguments over outlines. The argument your proposing here is similar to other users past ones; all of which have failed, and again consensus has been consistantly reached to convert topic lists into outlines.   Burningview    ✉  19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, forgot about that. Highfields (talk, contribs) 19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, 4 vs. 1, simple enough. I'll admit that a much bigger sample is needed for a real consensus, but as straw polls go I think it is a quite nice demonstration. It doesn't really matter what 'policy' there is in place, any RfC either way would be establishing new policy. Highfields (talk, contribs) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't 4 vs 1. I've seen no evidence that WP:OOOK has achieved any kind of consensus for its activities, and know there are questions over whether it is actually a valid project at all. It's 4 vs 2 now, and the two are backed by community consensus and policy. When I wrote it was 3 vs 2. I don't know why you're discounting one of the opinions. Burningview, you might want to have a look at the talk page of WP:OUTLINE. Topic lists are lists, covered by WP:LIST. Verbal chat  19:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see your own, I only bothered counting the bolded text. (I assume thats the one your getting at). Highfields (talk, contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok we disagree on the Outline vs List titles and formats, but why take this route though? If you don't like the idea of outlines taking the place of topic lists then attack it on the basis for all potential situations like these. Do you realize there are more topic lists like these that have been converted into outlines? So will you decide to go after those outlines next? Per Transhumanist, in the beginning, this was designed specifically for the Outline project which included outline formatting. Unless, there is more consensus against outline titles it should remain Outline of water, and we can debate the ambigous nature of the title later when appropriate. Again actions against outlines should apply to all, not on a one-to-one outline attack strategy.   Burningview    ✉  20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, you say 4 v 2 is not community consensus. In fact it is. To change the status quo, you need a super majority of at least 70%. You have -50% which is 120% off. -- penubag  (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The editprotect tag requires the dispute to have been resolved first. We do not work on voting in wikipedia. Verbal</b> chat  11:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it wasn't necessary, but since there is "vote" counting going on here and the imaginary support for the absurd outline project is being used as a crucial argument: I am also against the move that was abusively requested with an "editprotected" template and unfortunately implemented.
 * The vote counting is totally improper, however. We only do this kind of thing after long discussions have shown that neither side can convince the other or "win" on policy grounds. As to consensus being required before something is renamed:
 * This list was created as List of water topics, a name under which it existed for a little less than 2 months.
 * Nine days ago it was renamed to Outline of water. This was reverted 6 minutes later, followed by a re-revert after 6 hours.
 * Three days later it was moved back to List of water topics; this was reverted by an admin who responded to an improper "editprotected" template. Admins are supposed to check on their own whether there actually is a consensus in such cases, but the bold statements in the RfC above because it's not at all clear what to "oppose" or "support". The fact that the request was followed looks like an innocent oversight to me.
 * The status quo for this article is clearly that it's called List of water topics. When you start a WP:BRD cycle you don't make the result of your bold action the new status quo. The renaming here was opposed from the beginning. Hans Adler 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice summary Hans. I agree. The List of water topics title should be reinstated. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans, your claims are flawed. This list was originally created as Outline of water. Check the history yourself. It was only renamed back to outline of water after Verbal first controversially moved it to List of water topics. Many editors reverted his moves but Verbal asks for this page to be move protected and the protecting admin did not look closely into this matter and protected the page only to be corrected by admin Jake W. Verbal should not have started the move and request for move protection. There is no ground for a page move here. -- penubag  (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops! You are right about the original name. Sorry for this; I was confused by an extension I am using. (It collapses consecutive edits by the same editor, and by almost inexcusable carelessness I missed that the first move was collapsed. Very sorry indeed. Hans Adler 08:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, we all make mistakes. But what really troubles me is that Verbal knew this all along and still has the nerves to ask for a page move based on the saying the original title was list of water topics. I hope he can explain his dishonesty on his talkpage, but I already know he will derail the subject as he did on his AN/I. EDIT:Verbal has claimed on his talkpage that he made a mistake himself, and I accept his claim. I retract my comments that he is dishonest and a lot of trouble. -- penubag  (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the above discussions, the recent contested move by Jake should be reverted, and the original "list of water topics" be restored. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose any more moves from Outlines to lists until this dispute is resolved. All parties agreed that there would be no further page moves until a consensus on the naming style of Lists and Outlines are resolved and moving this page would breach that agreement. Furthermore it was determined that any further moving of these articles constitutes as a movewar . Verbal, why are you adding flames to this fire? Firstly, you do not have adequate consensus at all and secondly, you agreed yourself that there shall not be any page moves until this whole thing is resolved. -- penubag  (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this move request is based on a flawed claim; see above -- penubag  (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't make editrequests for changes that are controversial or not supported by consensus. Skomorokh,  barbarian  09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there is no consensus, but admit that I made an error in thinking this was originally a list. This is due to the huge number of lit to outline renames, and was a genuine mistake, and does not deserve the personal attack on my talk page. A simple reminder would have sufficed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank penubag for his edit above where he acknowledges my mistake was a mistake. Hopefully that point is resolved - progress!? :) Lets hope the other issues can be resolved as quickly! <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I've removed the intro as it was too long for a list, and was copied verbatim from the Water article, which is against policy and license restrictions. I've replaced it with a simple description of this article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You removed it because it was evidence for it being an outline rather than your high-and-mighty list Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I removed it because of policy and license restrictions. You should remove such copied intros from any other outlines if you know of any. The history of the page, ie who added what, is required by the GFDL. This page doesn't have the history of who added what to the intro because it was a cut and paste. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat


 * As I read Terms_of_Use all that is needed is a link to the page that the content was copied from. I'm guessing that the license issue is no longer valid after the licensing to CC-BY-SA 3.0? But then I'm not a license expert. --Stefan talk 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It requires linking and specific tagging at the time and by the editor who makes the copy, there is a process that must be followed and wasn't here. It can't be retroactively applied. This is not my opinion but that of wikipedia editors specialist in this area (the copyvio team). Also, the history requirement is still in force - although there is some debate as to whether even this is sufficient. It is required at the very least. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Please show me a link to that process?? I'm prettyr sure it can be done retroactivly. --Stefan talk 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It can probably be done again from scratch. I suggest you speak to one of the copyvio team. However, I would oppose that as it needlessly duplicates the main article, which should simply be linked to. The lead, per policy, should describe the content of this article, which in this case is a list. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So you do not know? And you wrote above '  I removed it because of policy and license restrictions ' and '  It can't be retroactively applied '. I planned to ask the copyvio team since they are the experts, but found Copying within Wikipedia which they are working on (not policy yet), see section Repairing insufficient attribution, but if you do not trust them please ask, I'm convinced. All that needs to be done is to retroactively add a link to the source. No ' specific tagging  ' needed and can be done by anyone, do you want to revert your edit or do you mind that I do? --Stefan talk 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm just trying to catch up on all of this and a dif lead me here. This should help answer this question I hope.  I hope this helps solve at least one of the disputes.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  09:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Copying within Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 20:18, 15 February 2010 (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 00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)