Wikipedia talk:Contents

Redesigning this page
I think that this page should be redesigned to look more like a table of contents page. This page is more about a table of contents for multiple tables of contents and I would like to see it look more like a list of articles. Pinging to see if he/she has some ideas on what we do to improve the page. Other editors are welcome to comment as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're describing sounds more like Contents/Overviews. Overall, it's tricky to ascertain who is ending up at the contents page and how they might best be served. People just don't browse Wikipedia via a table of contents; they almost always have a topic in mind and search for it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb: I have made some changes to the contents page. I have put the vital articles on top since they are Wikipedia's most important articles. What do you think of the design so far? Do you think it could be improved to serve most readers? You said that readers come here for all different reasons and was wondering how we could improve the page. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This reply is apt, I believe. Haroldwonder (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents → Knowledge hub – I feel like that the title of "Contents" doesn't give a good overview of what this page is about. The title of "Knowledge hub" would be a much better title so that people are more inclined to explore this page. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposed Wikipedia:Knowledge hub is so obscure its not even a blue redirect.  KISS principle .... lets keep this were people can actually find it. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Knowledge hub seems too gimmicky, contents is simpler and a better name.  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 23:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * While "knowledge hub" sounds fancier, the title "Contents" describes this page concisely and accurately. I would not be able to tell what "Knowledge hub" does from reading the title alone, but I can from "contents". I don't think this change is necessary. Ca talk to me! 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also consider a title like WP:Resource center. Interstellarity (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Contents" works, and "knowledge hub" is less clear. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 00:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all the above opposition. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose As someone trying to understand the topic structure of WP calling this page Contents is useful (and has a well-known meaning) while knowledge hub is much less clear. Providing a structured outline of content within WP should be the aim as far as possible. Probably a specialist use but still very helpful for those that need it. Amanda Lawrence 11:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Contents" conveys the meaning of the page adequately. Renaming the page to "knowledge hub" is unnecessary and would frankly be a waste of time. Macbrew (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose sounds a lot like a marketing buzz word, whereas contents describes it better. &#91;&#91;User:Zippybonzo&#124;Zippybonzo&#93;&#93; &#38;#124&#59; &#91;&#91;User talk:Zippybonzo&#124;alt&#93;&#93; &#38;#124&#59; he/she/they (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The "Contents" menu item is missing from Wikipedia's mobile view!
I can't believe my eyes. I just went browsing Wikipedia using its mobile view (by placing an "m" between "en" and "wikipedia" in the URL for this page), and I noticed that the "Contents" link is missing from mobile view's main menu. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents and click on the hamburger menu icon (3 bars) to the left of the Wikipedia globe. That means that Wikipedia's contents system is invisible to the majority of people who access this website. This is unfathomable: The vast majority of people who use Wikipedia don't even know that the contents system exists! How can we fix this? How can we get the "Contents" link added to the main menu of Wikipedia's mobile view? Does anyone know the link to mobile view's main menu talk page? Thank you. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   21:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Pinging:. &mdash; The Transhumanist  21:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly I have no idea. I would say trying to contacti an interface admin would be your best course of action here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like common sense that the approval of placing "Contents" on the main sidebar menu in the first place (it was proposed and approved on VPP back in 2007) should carry through to any new views, like the mobile view. But, small screens are so different that it can't be assumed that it would work the same. So, there is some homework to do. (See the section below).  &mdash; The Transhumanist   05:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Do the contents pages view well on mobile Wikipedia?
Upon looking over previous proposals at "Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)" to change mobile view's hamburger menu, it may not be a simple matter of requesting the addition of "Contents"...  How the contents system (that is, this page and all of its member pages) looks on mobile devices has to be anticipated before making a request to provide easy access. If anyone is interested in exploring how to provide the 60%+ users of WP who do not typically see the contents pages, with the contents pages, there is a mobile view link at the bottom of every page. Please visit each contents page while in the mobile view, with content size adjusted to as close an approximation as you can to simulate a smart phone screen, while sizing the window to the proportion of a mobile phone, and see if there are any problems with browsing and reading the contents pages. If you have a smart phone or other mobile device that can access Wikipedia, use that. Let us know here what you learn. Well, I'm off to do the same. Ciao,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So far, I've noticed that the navigation headers at the top of the pages take up a lot of room on a smart phone screen. This is perfectly in context for the main Contents page, but shoves the content of the other contents pages down off the bottom of the window. Is there any way to hide the navigation headers on the contents subpages, but for mobile users only?   &mdash; The Transhumanist   07:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is beautiful
Wow. I'm blown away. This is definitely worth discussing. I noticed that it has 12 subject area classifications, while Wikipedia has 13. The Reference area is missing. That makes 13, which is awkward to put in a block, but could it be possible to add that to the top, centered above the block, or to the bottom, centered below the block? I'm not sure what picture could be used for that (a stack of books, maybe?), but it would be a shame to leave an entire knowledge classification out of our knowledge classification system. Next, is where can we make use of this? It would be a shame to have it sitting on a mere draft page. &mdash; The Transhumanist  22:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like it! It's visually pleasing, intuitive, as well as useful for navigation and I still think it would work well on the contents page. I was thinking about starting an RfC but didn't get around to it... Having "reference works" as a broad category on the same level of "technology" and "science" feels odd to me... I'm not sure we need it, but we could add it. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 22:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, have you ever noticed that reference works are at the beginning of the Dewey Decimal System? (000) They are the keys to the kingdom. The "kingdom" being the "kingdom of knowledge". So, while it isn't a broad knowledge category, it is overarching: reference works help unlock all the other subject categories and therefore are just as critical. As important as introducing students to the arts and sciences, is introducing them to library catalogs, dictionaries, thesauri, and other tools for finding the knowledge that they need to get through life. Starting an RfC may be perceived as adversarial by those who have dedicated themselves to this department, as a way to override them. It may be better to try to build a good working relationship. Everyone here is very talented.  Before placing something like this in the mainstream, testing is important, in order to avoid potential unforeseen problems. We don't want an epic fail or crash that affects millions of people. So, making something available to a smaller population at first is a way to avoid major flubs on the main stage.  If a high enough percentage of those who try it like it, that would warrant making it more widely available. So, we should definitely put it on display somewhere, and start getting feedback on this excellent menu design.  Have you tested your design on Wikipedia's mobile view? On my screen, the pictures look off-center when in single-column display.  Have you viewed your creation in all the major web browsers to make sure it appears the same? I use firefox, and it looks great in that.  By the way, would it be difficult to design something like that which links to the various contents subsystem pages?  You know, the ones that have their own contents page in the familiar standard layout (Overviews, Outlines, Lists, Portals, Glossaries, Categories, and Indices). It might be nice to have a visual menu for navigating to those as well.   &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I'll try to work on incorporating reference works into the design (or if I'm slow maybe someone else can do it). The design was tested and I continually adjusted it one day until it was responsive. It should be good on tablets, monitors, and phones, minus the offcentered thing. I'm not really sure why the images are offcentered like that, because it only happens on some mobile devices (I think only en.m.wikipedia.org). — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. Could it be, that the reason the images are off-center in the version of your menu transcluded above, is because the css isn't getting accessed? Do CSS subpages follow transclusions of their parent page?  On the gallery page itself, the menu appears properly in both the desktop and mobile view in my firefox and opera browsers.   &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would need to start an RFC to implement a scrolling nightmare like this as those concerned with accessibility for our readers would have a problem. That said I  think lots would also think it's pretty even though it would  impede navigation. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 18:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. If testing shows it to be popular, an opt-in approach wouldn't need approval, like a link or a skin or a user script or something.  &mdash; The Transhumanist

Changing the order of pages
What do you think of this edit right here? I think it would be better to consolidate sections with vital articles at the top since it is a good way to organize the list. Please discuss here. Interstellarity (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sub pages of the directory should be first then project pages. Its wondefull you like the vital pages project but this system has been set up with Wikipedia:Contents/sub pages for a reason.


 * Contents/Reference
 * Contents/Culture and the arts
 * Contents/Geography and places
 * Contents/Health and fitness
 * Contents/History and events
 * Contents/Human activities
 * Contents/Mathematics and logic
 * Contents/Natural and physical sciences
 * Contents/People and self
 * Contents/Philosophy and thinking
 * Contents/Religion and belief systems
 * Contents/Society and social sciences
 * Contents/Technology and applied sciences
 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists (Standardized template) about introducing a standardized and accessible format for its subpages that may be of interest. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)