Wikipedia talk:Contents/Outlines/Archive 3

Summary of what has been done so far
List names have been standardized. They now use the actual (noun) name of the subject - no adjectival forms like "architectural". This ensures the titles will turn up in subject searches entered in the search box.

A heading skeleton has been added to all of the basic lists. The skeleton doesn't fit every subject perfectly and merely provides a starting point. An introductory paragraph (known as the "lead section"), which defines the list's subject, has been added to many of the lists. The skeleton has been fleshed out for about half the lists.

Hacking the list to shreads
I'd say that was a major hacking. Quiddity, you seem to be having trouble with the consensus/be bold dichotomy. Basically, being bold is reserved for when you can reasonably expect there to be no opposition nor objections. For a change that is likely to get opposition, which you should have expected here, consensus-building applies.

Your recent changes lack consensus. I've reverted the page to the more useful version. The topics on the page are pretty basic, even if they don't have "basic" in the title. Creating standard format pages for them all isn't practical, so we should fill in the gaps the best we can. --The Transhumanist 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I was removing the items that are neither lists, nor lists of basic items within a topic. There was no explanation for why category links and normal article links were mixed in, so I removed them. Seems perfectly clear. I'm reverting once. You do not own this list, please build consensus for changing this page's direction before doing so. You seem to be mixing Overviews and Basic topic lists together? See also Wikipedia talk:Contents. --Quiddity 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree "list" pages should stick to lists. Also, just out of ignorance, can someone summarize what "basic" means here? What sets them apart from the plain ol' "Lists of topics"? What comes to mind for me would be like what you would find as the "subcategories" for a major topic in list form. Rfrisbietalk 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, clarification would be good on "basic". Some of these sublists are growing very large, and are not-so-basic anymore. --Quiddity 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What's with the edit warring? I've checked the links, and almost all of the ones you removed are to lists. I found one category and a couple articles with lists in them. I'll fix those links. --The Transhumanist 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One revert does not a war make. --Quiddity 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "basic"
Let's go for a working definition. Right now, it appears to be, "Below are lists of fundamental concepts for major subject areas. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with the respective areas." I see one way to operationalize this would be to say, Rfrisbietalk 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Lists of basic topics include only:
 * those lists named "List of basic X topics,"
 * those lists based on subcategories for major subject areas, plus...


 * Exactly. Here's an example using Psychology of what I understand this pages purpose to contain is:


 * Overview: Psychology
 * list of basic topics: List of basic psychology topics
 * list of topics: List of psychology topics
 * lists of lists: List of psychology topic lists
 * tables: everything else with "psychology" and "list" in the title currently seems to get put here, but shouldn't as they're already listed at List of psychology topic lists.
 * Timelines belong with timelines, unsolved problem lists are already at Overviews. etc. --Quiddity 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Or to use the list you just made as an example, and the List of basic topics intro: List of online dictionaries is not a "list of fundamental concepts for [a] major subject area". --Quiddity 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting a bit semantic here. I wrote that stupid introduction, and sometimes I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be.  I meant "key" topics.  Each of those lists in the reference area would qualify as being basic enough to go in a basic list, say the List of basic reference topics, but then the reference section would have one link.  I thought it would be better to bring those topics up one level to make them more easily accessible.  As far as research and study goes, each of those items are essential tools.  We're trying to build these content lists with the end users in mind.  Who will be using this page the most?  Students, most likely.  And introducing students to the most useful research tools is very appropriate for a page like this. In that sense the links are quite basic for them getting an A in school.  And that in large part is what Wikipedia is all about: being an academic resource.  --The Transhumanist 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course we're being semantic, this thread is about defining our purpose here. So, with my comments at Wikipedia talk:Contents in mind, are you now trying to make this article into a list of everything you consider 'basic'? --Quiddity 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not any more than you try to make the pages you work on what you consider they should be, in terms of what you believe would be most useful to users of the page, which is exactly the approach I take. That's our mission.  The tempering factor here (analagous to the tempering factor in steel production) is the discussion/consensus-building process.  But you skipped replying to most of the content of my previous post.  I'm interested in your opinion on those points, as they pertain to our purpose here.  And speaking of semantics, the name of the page is "Lists of basic topics", so any list which presents the basic topics of the subject of the list qualifies for being listed on this page.  With that in mind, I'm thinking about creating the List of basic BDSM topics.  ;-)  --The Transhumanist 11:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "basic" still apply to this list collection?
Is this list collection no longer basic? If it isn't, then we need to figure out what to rename it. It's a pretty useful resource, and it would be a shame to dismantle it. No doubt it belongs somewhere in the reference system. --The Transhumanist 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That question gets back to begging the question, "What types of lists should be included at Contents?" If we can answer that question, then we can sort out what types of pages we need, with working definitions of what should be included on them. This says to me we still need operational definitions, and outlines of what constitutes high-level "Contents." Rfrisbietalk 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not an ivory tower issue. I think it's pretty easy to answer.  Start asking people how they make use of these lists.  Find out which lists are actually being made use of, and find out what users want.  --The Transhumanist 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative replies are counter-productive. I've made my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Rfrisbietalk 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You should Assume good faith. Practical replies are highly productive.  And I'm being nothing if not practical.  The users are out there, and the wiki provides plenty of ways to reach them.  All we have to do is do it.  There's nothing derogatory or contemptive (pejorative) about that. --The Transhumanist 04:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "That's not an ivory tower issue." is pejorative. Take responsibility for your own actions. Rfrisbietalk 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you have misinterpretted me. This discussion page, with its small group of self-selected participants, is an Ivory Tower, the discussions within insulated from the very ones the discussions are to benefit.  There's nothing pejorative there at all.  We just don't know what we should be doing, because we don't know what the ones we are doing it for want.  Your taking it personally belies your ego, for I wasn't singling you out, for I'm in this Ivory Tower as well. I simply believe it is the wrong approach.  --The Transhumanist 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Red links
What is the point of all the red links here? It's not like a project is likely to be using them to create basic topics lists. I'm going to delete them. If you revert, please explain here. Rfrisbietalk 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is explained very clearly in the IMPORTANT notice at the top of the page (in edit mode). I've been using the redlinks to create the lists, which is not that difficult when you substitute the BLT template.  I'm planning to get back to them, but have been taking a little break from lists (they can drive you a little buggy after awhile, if that's all you do).  :)  I'm reverting.  Please chip in on the lists, rather than detract from the effort.  Thanks, man.      Th e Tr ans hu man ist     05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's fill in the redlinks!
Of course there's more to it than just substituting the BLT (Basic List Template). Enough links need to be provided to provide the basis for a starting point. The headings in the BLT don't always match context, so those sometimes need to be changed. Same for the auto-generated links - sometimes the real articles are named something else. But these still aren't quite enough...

Do you know how to use Google to do Wikipedia-specific searches? The advanced search feature of Google rocks, and speeds up the search for relevant links incredibly. Some pointers: set the search results to 100. Set "Occurrences" to "in the title of the page". Set domain to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ . And use the "-" symbol in the search field to weed out categories and such, like this: -category -template -ziggurat etc.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist     05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention...

...it's fun!

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist     05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tracking article quality
One way to address the article quality issue is to color code the links on the lists. Red of course means they are empty and need attention right away. Bright blue means the content of a link is sparse and also needs work. A normal link is relatively complete, and users who are here primarily to read will quickly learn to avoid bright blue and click on normal links. Serious editors on the other hand would be attracted to bright blue and would seek them out to lend Wikipedia a helping hand by bringing those pages up to par. This system is in operation on the page Lists of basic topics. I've found it invaluable for directing my efforts on those lists, as it prevents me from having to check each list manually to find the ones that need work. Jump in and lend a hand and help build those lists. Thanks. --The Transhumanist 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really like this method - it's mixing a large dose of wikiproject-style into article-space, which I don't feel is really appropriate at these top-level pages. (Though it would be appropriate on their talkpages..) --Quiddity 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we already have redlinks, which are a fundamental feature of lists, used for the purposes of tracking missing pages and gaps. When the lists are completed, all the links will be the same color.  So it's a temporary situation, like the warning signs used for road construction.  Do supermarkets close down during remodeling?  Nope.  They look a bit rough because of the ongoing construction, but the food is still available.  So rather than remove the useful road signs, we should speed up the work. --The Transhumanist 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitrary and undocumented color coding of links has no basis in Wikipedia article style. If these were "project" pages, then the assessment system should be used. The blue links should be removed from article space. Rfrisbietalk 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The "best" way Wikipedia tracks article quality is through Version 1.0 Editorial Team — Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria. That's what I was trying to reflect in my addition of a new section. That's the only place on this contents page Wikipedia can justifiably claim some level of quality articles. All the other links here that "in turn link to all the rest" of the articles are of unproven quality. Full and frank disclosure would include all of these links on the top-level Contents page, but it also would clearly notify the reader that not all articles meet Wikipedia's established peer review quality standards. Rfrisbietalk 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point: I haven't been tracking article quality per se.  I've been tracking lists that I started which I haven't completed yet.  They have blank sections, etc.  Whoever is working on these basic lists needs some way to easily keep track of which ones need work.  Without the blue links, I found myself clicking on every link just to find the ones I hadn't finished yet - it was very time consuming and annoying.  The blue links are rather inoccuous.  And they are not intended to remain for long.  You can help by jumping in and working on those lists.  In the time we've spent debating on this talk page, we could have completed several lists each! If we were to focus on those, and not on these time-wasting discussions, we could get the bluelinked pages done in short order.  --The Transhumanist 10:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating a personal project tracking system in article space clearly demonstrates who's missing the point. It's totally out of line and should be stopped. Rfrisbietalk 12:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree. The personal highlighting/tracking system really should be moved to the article's talkpage. --Quiddity 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously. --Quiddity 19:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are backlinks okay?
To see how it would look, I've added a backlink in the following basic lists: Culture, Classics, and Cooking; leading to their parent page (Lists of basic topics). Looks pretty good, though I thought I'd better seek consensus before investing a lot of time on changes that might be blanket-reverted. The basic list collection is a 2-tier structure like Help:Contents, and they are reference pages, so it makes perfect sense. But I'll leave it up to you guys.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist     08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they're superfluous to the lists footer navbar link. --Quiddity 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad I didn't add them to all the pages.      Th e Tr ans hu man ist     12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Namespace?
Shouldn't this be at List of basic topics? Surely this is not article content, and hence should be in the Wikipedia namespace? What am I missing? &mdash; D a  niel  (‽) 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists go in article namespace, including lists of lists. It's basically article content, in that it was too large and had to be split off.  See List of mathematics lists.  These aren't administrative pages, they're specifically encyclopedic, and lead to articles just like lists, but one level deeper. To have lists of lists and not lists in the Wikipedia namespace would be confusing.  Hope that helps.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist     12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article... it should really be in the portal: namespace, similar to Portal:Current events and so on. --W.marsh 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists aren't articles either (most of them are lists of articles), yet still they're assigned place is the article namespace. See: Lists.  At the village pump I proposed a new namespace for lists, but that was turned down, with the majority of opinions supporting the status quo (that is, their current placement).    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists of lists are self-referential and shouldn't be articles. A list namespace might be a good idea but the portal namespace exists for pages that purely exist to organize links to articles.--W.marsh 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography subsections
I just reverted Grutness's addition of non–basic-topic-lists. I almost moved the single geography link to being a part of the #Natural sciences and nature section, but then thought it'd be better left for possible proper expansion with new sublists, or even itself be split into sub-lists.

I'll try to get around to writing a short notice for all the relevant wikiprojects soon, to let them know that these lists exist, so that they can help build and maintain. —Quiddity 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started placing notices on general pages. So far I've posted requests for help on the help desk, a couple of the reference desks, and requests for expansion.  I'll try to do a couple more each day.  (Though I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak!).     Th e Tr ans hu man ist   13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics and abstractions
Was wondering why the mathematics section is headed "Mathematics and abstractions". As far as I can see, all of the lists linked from this section are sub-topics of mathematics, so why not just head the section "Mathematics" ? Why is the "abstractions" bit needed ? Gandalf61 09:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That refers to logic. I think it also applies to mathematics, because aren't those abstractions too? I can't remember where the original edit/discussion took place though - the subheading is applied across all the navbar contents pages.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist   13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, lots of topics are abstractions. Physics is an abstraction. So is economics. Philosphy is full of abstractions. I think the term is too vague. If it just means "logic" in this context, then it would be more precise to call the section "Mathematics and logic". Gandalf61 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your notes on the Reference desk
Hi Transhumanist! I'll help if I can, but what exactly do you need help with? I'll follow if you'll lead. | A ndonic O  Talk 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy
The philosophy list seems a bit strange. Why do humanism and transhumanism get there own categories (apart from Philosophical -ism which is already listed)? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are intended to be lists on all the major and emergent philosophies, and on all major subtopics of philosophy, and also on all substantial subtopics in each section of the page (on Geography subtopics, on History subtopics, etc.). I tend to make lists of those subjects I wish to study at the moment, and then use those to navigate.  I was shocked to find them missing, as this is where I go to access them.  And since I'm interested in everything, I've worked on a wide variety of topics across all fields -- I've done most of the work on most of the lists on the page.  In philosophy, I'll eventually get around to Ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Rationalism, etc., unless someone beats me to it. (hint hint) Using {{subst:BLT}}, it usually takes me between 1 to 3 hours to build a basic topics list.  Sometimes I focus on an entire section (see the art, and technology sections) and develop it straight through alphabetically - but this is mentally exhausting. I've found it far less tedious to bounce around.  This page is intended for "cheat sheets" on various subjects - that is, lists in the "basic list format".  Those two lists you removed belong to this set -- they provide basic topic coverage of their respective subjects, plus they are good examples of how basic topic lists are constructed and will be helpful to refer to when constructing other philosophical lists.  I got somewhat burnt out on listmaking (I also did extensive work on Contents and its children on the Template:Contents pages (header bar)), and have been taking it easy on lists for awhile.  Recently I've been adding links here and there to the existing lists and placing links to the lists in the see also sections of relevant articles.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists belong in the main namespace
Why was this page moved without a discussion on this talk page? At the very least, a notice linking to the discussion -- a discussion taking place on an official forum rather than in the backwoods on someone's talk page -- should have been posted here.

A guideline can't override a guideline. The list guideline clearly sets forth that lists are a type of article. This list qualifies as the type of list known as a "structured list" and "table of contents". I just checked the list guideline, and tables of contents are specifically covered on there. I had completely forgotten about that. This page should be moved back to the main namespace, where it has been located for a very long time, and which is supported by the list guideline. The Transhumanist 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Lists and Contents pages
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents concerning the Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)