Wikipedia talk:Move navigational lists to portal namespace

Initial comments
Note that a search for "list topics" returned 15,662 hits. If we decide to move all lists of topics to portal space, we will need to automate the process. I think it is an interesting idea and needs to be explored, but the benefits will have to be worth the effort required to make the conversion. -- Donald Albury 15:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. The thing is, I don't think it's possible to use a bot as even categories can't be relied on - for an example, Category:Mathematics-related_lists has articles such as Lists of integrals and List of limits. It may be possible using something like AWB, but that's Windows-only and I'm on Linux, so it's not practical for me to investigate. -Halo (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully support this proposal, but it would definitely be difficult to implement. I do think that the redirects should remain in place to help people find these pages. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 15:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very important that these lists be easy to find. If these articles are moved to portal namespace, I would strongly support keeping the article title as a redirect even though this is not normally done for cross-namespace redirects. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mathematics portal and Economics portal already link to the expected pages, so perhaps it's not such a big deal with portals -Halo (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a highly contoversial proposal. It would, among other things, move Lists of mathematics topics back to the portal namespace. This list was previously moved to the portal namespace following a discussion, and then back again following a complaint that no consensus had been reached to move to the portal namespace. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having looked further at the discussion at talk:Lists of mathematics topics, I'd say think again about a large-scale, automated move. Instead, first move some specific lists. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I think moving specific lists one at a time will cause more grief than a centralised discussion -Halo (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is fine. But this proposal seeks to overturn a previous and highly contentious decision with regard to Lists of mathematics topics. Does anyone here know of any previous discussions regarding any of the other affected lists? Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with this idea. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean, with the proposal to move all the navigational lists? Just seeking clarification, your indenting leaves some doubt in my mind as to exactly which idea you mean. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The initial proposal as it stands is what I agree with. Ambitious, but worthwhile. Your concerns below about providing sufficient notice before the move are also appropriate to the scope of this change. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lists of mathematics topics" is NOT a "navigational list"
Obviously, lists of mathematics topics is not intended to be used only, or even primarily, for navigation. "Navigation" means finding your way to where you want to get to when you have in mind some specific place you want to get to. I think if I regarded this is a "navigational list", I might not object to putting it in the portal space.

Andrewa, I challenge you to convince us that lists of mathematics topics should be considered "navigational". Don't just act as if that's self-evident and uncontroversial; give us your arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of affected articles
I really doubt that there are 15,000 pages to be moved. I ran the following google search: site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:topics; that returned 2,810 results. And some of those are in template space and Wikipedia space. I'm guessing less than fifteen hundred. You might want to submit a request for a bot to generate a page of articles in mainspace that have the word "topics" in the title (including the word "list" is unnecessary and would miss articles like Topics in cryptography). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't browse far enough into the search report; nothing but 'List of ... topics' until page 31, and then they trail off. That means there are more than 600, but I'm don't know how many more. I notice that some of these are index pages to multiple lists. -- Donald Albury 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Baseline needed
Requested moves is a place to discuss action rather than just policy. When the time comes to close the listing there, assuming there's been a consensus to move, someone will need to decide exactly which articles are affected by this decision. IMO it would be best to have a baselined list of these, but there are other ways, just so long as it is clear what action is proposed.

We do need something. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. How comprehensive is Portal:Contents/Lists of topics? -- Donald Albury 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all these ideas of selecting lists eligible for move to portal namespace on "name" (e.g. contains the word "topics" in the page name) or prior listing in categories or on Portal pages somewhat deceptive.
 * I'd hinge on the "navigational" aspect of the list: if a list has (for instance) no lead section (all articles should have a lead section), if it has exclusively bluelinks and virtually no unlinked text, if it has no external references, no images (except for some free-licence icons), and maybe some similar characteristics, then imho you have the look and feel of a navigational list as opposed to a list that is a main namespace article.
 * As an example of such a navigational list that is already in Portal namespace indeed Portal:Contents/Lists of topics could be mentioned.
 * Here's an example of a list I'd immediately identify as a "navigational list", with no ambition whatsoever to ever become an article in its own right: List of mathematics articles (0-9). There's no red text on the page; Not a single reference or external "light" blue link; The only black text on the page is either in a template or is a section title. I think even a 'bot could recognise that any page that has over 99% of the words on the page enclosed in either double square brackets or double curly brackets or "==" (section header) signs... is a navigational page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This indicates to me that the scope of this move request is neither well defined nor agreed among those discussing it. In view of this, I'd suggest closing the move request, currently listed at requested moves. Even if consensus to move is achieved, the closing admin won't know what to move!


 * This discussion can certainly be added to the existing discussion, and there are then a number of other ways forward rather than WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In that nobody speaks, I've set up a section Requested move below that will I hope enable us to close the RM in a reasonably neat manner when the time comes. It was that or move it to WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralised discussion
This page has been listed on requested moves and also on Talk:Lists of mathematics topics. Has it been listed anywhere else?

Part of the normal process of WP:RM is a notice on the talk page of each affected article. Obviously we can't do that until we have a list of these. Or, is it proposed to move articles without this notice?

Where else should it be listed? Village pump (policy) will be the place to take the discussion at some stage; It doesn't seem to be listed there yet. Village pump (proposals) is a difficult call; The project page is indeed a proposed guideline, so from that point of view it doesn't belong at proposals. On the other hand, if we're not yet ready to propose the guideline at policy, and particularly if it's proposed not to put the normal requested move notice on all the affected talk pages, it does belong somewhere on the pump IMO.

That leaves Village pump (miscellaneous), which is headed Please try to post within policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. So I'm inclined to think that the policy section is the one. But do we really want to be discussing the policy proposal as such while the requested move is open? Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "Has it been listed anywhere else?":
 * Village pump (of course!)
 * WT:V (where the idea of this page seems to have originated)
 * Has been added to Template:Cent too, and as a result is linked from hundreds of pages in project/user/usertalk namespace
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I didn't see Village pump (policy) - it's a long Table of Contents and I must have just missed it.


 * Now archived at Village pump (policy)/Archive 22. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 14 also seems relevant. Unfortunately there seems to have been no consensus, but perhaps we can avoid raising points already answered there. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories and pagenames
I have 2 related questions from the archive#14 VPP discussion, that still need answers: Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What category name should these alphabetical index pages use? Category:Index articles or Category:Alphabetical indexes or something along those lines. Suggestions/precedent? (Once we add them all to a category, that'll give us a definitive list to point at too, for pagemove discussions etc.)
 * Should/can we standardize the page-names whilst we're moving things around? Change them to something like "Index of (subject) articles" or "Alphabetical list of (subject) topics" or "Alphabetical index of (subject) articles". Suggestions? (I prefer the last of those 3 examples. Seems the clearest and most precise.) This part is non-urgent, just something to consider for later.
 * I've created Category:Topical indexes, and placed all the articles currently on this project-page in it. I'll now go through Portal:Contents/Lists of topics to add any other exhaustive-alphabetical indexes I can see there. [ ... ]
 * There are a handful that arent pure/simple alphabetical lists (which I've listed at Category talk:Topical indexes) that I included anyway, but the rest are just unordered alphabetical indexes. I think I've listed most of them now. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are around 280+ pages in the main category, and 160+ in the "by country" and "by region" subcats.
 * Next will be going through the various wikiprojects, and finding their related-changes topics lists like WikiProject Illinois/Illinois recent changes. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

Delisting per discussion below. It appears the participants are working on building consensus via centralized discsussion, and won't need help from RM now. Should you need admin assistance later, please don't hesitate to ask, either at WP:RM or at my own talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ''This proposal has been listed at WP:RM. This section is to help in the processing of that request. It does not concern moving this page itself. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)''


 * Oppose. This WP:RM is at least premature. There is no consensus as to exactly which articles are affected, so even if consensus to move is achieved, the consequences are not clear. There is also an unresolved policy question as to whether notices should be placed on individual article talk pages notifying of the intended move, as would be normal for WP:RM. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. While noting and agreeing with the procedural concerns of which Andrewa is right to remind us, the lists themselves are properly recognized as navigational tools and should be distinct from articles. I have also observed that navigational lists while sometimes absolutely neutral, are sometimes used as a compromise to creating categories for controversial matter. Moving forward, we should exercise caution not to stir hornets nests while still making wikipedia even more navigationally friendly. This is a broad ambitious project that will require skill and good judgment. It should have the support of administrators and it should proceed portal by portal so as to gauge the effect on the community. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
If this RM is rejected, that doesn't mean that the proposal can't go ahead. It just means that WP:RM wasn't a good way forward. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The RM does seem premature. I'd suggest delisting there, but pointing to the discussion that is here, wherever is appropriate instead. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that it is already listed at Cent. Before I add a listing to Requests for comment/Policies, I think we need to clarify which pages we're discussing: I've populated Category:Topical indexes with all the alphabetical indices I could find (and a handful of more organised indices, as listed on its talkpage); I'd suggest we limit our discussion to those, at least for now. (So, specifically, Lists of mathematics topics would not be included in any decision, as it is more properly part of Category:Lists of lists). Does that sound agreeable to all? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Village pump (policy)/Archive 22. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

other navigational devices?
The primary desire behind this proposal seems to be to clean up mainspace of navigational content. Is there also an issue of somehow getting a better handle on navigational devices? If so, lists-as-indexes is one navigational device; but so are template info/series boxes are another, and categories. Would the portals be a good way to somehow work with all of these and think about ways to present cleaner interfaces to the multitude of navigational devices? --Lquilter (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With the newish Help:Category function, this could work quite well, as shown at Portal:Internet and others.
 * And Portal:Hong Kong utilizes the article navbox Hong Kong topics.
 * Lots of options, at least. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this still under discussion?
Last posts seem to be about a month ago, what happened with this? If it's still up in the air, I fully support it. I've been quite frustrated with the proliferation of lists and think they'd make much more sense in Portal space, particularly if associated with specific portals.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Move all navigational lists to be under "Contents" subpages
Assuming the basic consensus to move all navigational lists to portal space is settled, make it simple enough so a bot (or even an editor! ;-) can do it. Moving these lists under "regular" portals has all sorts of built-in problems, such as no related portal, multiple related portals and ambiguously related portals. The first set of moves should be very simple (read "mechanical"). The best way to start this process, IMHO, is to have a bot move all the affected pages linked from a Contents subpage to be under it. When the bot is finished, someone can move back anything that turned out to not be a "navigational list." After that, editors can take stock of what's left in article space and decide what to do with the remaining navigational lists (probably move each such list to be under one of the Contents subpages and create a link to it in the applicable section). The basic pages for a bot to process, with proposed naming conventions are listed below:

An approach like this would be much simpler to implement and it would allow editors to focus on making the calls that require a little more judgment than a botable "links on page" moving rule. RichardF (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A few notes, to get my thoughts out. I havent revisited this topic for a few months, so am a little hazy (or "fresh" ;)
 * Afaik, where we were at, was contemplating moving the "lists of lists", "topical indexes", and "basic topic lists", and possibly "glossaries of", to portalspace.
 * My count for Category:Topical indexes, per the thread above, was approx 450+.
 * Also per that above thread, using articles names is quite unreliable, as is referring to the contents of Portal:Contents/Lists of topics (that page is mostly the skeleton from List of reference tables, before we got to it, and it still doesn't have much focus of selection... ;)
 * I just want to make sure that we don't accidentally include encyclopedic-articles as part of any mass move.
 * Apart from that, I agree!
 * I think the projectpage here probably needs to be updated, to reflect any new proposals, first. So that anyone wondering "wtf is going on" can get some quick answers, before we start implementing anything. (and to give us a chance to confirm consensus/details).


 * There's a horribly large amount of archive discussion for any newcomer to this dialog to digest (or for us to remember), at (the frustratingly dispersed) Portal talk:Contents, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents, Village pump (policy)/Archive 14, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, and various other places (our talkpages, other category/portal/list discussions, etc).
 * I hope that all makes vague sense. ("think big, go slow"). -- Quiddity (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What? ;-) RichardF (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Maybe it's better to cull the lists of any controversial items and/or cross check them against the corresponding categories first, but the above suggestion of where to put any pages that actually do get moved still stands. RichardF (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Lists of mathematics topics" is NOT a "navigational list"
Obviously, lists of mathematics topics is not intended to be used only, or even primarily, for navigation. "Navigation" means finding your way to where you want to get to when you have in mind some specific place you want to get to. I think if I regarded this is a "navigational list", I might not object to putting it in the portal space.

Andrewa, I challenge you to convince us that lists of mathematics topics should be considered "navigational". Don't just act as if that's self-evident and uncontroversial; give us your arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see that in the page we're discussion here, user:Halo first said this was to be about lists whose sole prupose is navigation, THEN mentioned lists of mathematics topics among examples, and didn't even hint that that is NOT a list whose sole purpose is navigation. Just as if that were something no one could disagree with. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Michael and I'd go further and question the basic premese here, that the main name space is "cluttered' and the the Portal name space should emphasized. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The capacity of the main name space is essentially infinite.  I see no evidence that users of Wikipedia are aided by a proliferation of namespaces, or that most are even aware that such things exist. Moving these lists to portal space will simply make them less accessible by users and therefore less useful. Portals should live or die on their own merits and not be resuscitated by grabbing content that was not created with portal use in mind. --agr (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The premise to help navigation and improve organisation. I realise Wikipedia isn't paper, but don't see how that's relevant - I'm not suggesting these helpful lists are are deleted afterall. The point is that that if you're looking for an article and you find, say, List of physics topics. If this was in the portal namespace, it'd be Portal:Physics/List of physics topics, and it'd automatically have a link back to Portal:Physics at the top, which is likely very relevent to the reader's interests. I personally think that's a good thing. It would also encourage portals to link to these article lists, which is also a good thing for readers.


 * I don't see how they would make them less accessible as my personal view is to retain the cross-namespace redirects. I don't see it as "grabbing content", because I don't see this as being some sort of 'war' between namespaces in the first place. Besides, portals have been here for 3+ years now, it's clear they've already lived on their own merits, so it's not really about that either. -Halo (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that any page that primarily consists of a large amounts of links to other parts of Wikipedia without much prose is a navigational aide to help you find the correct article (or, indeed, other lists) and that a general overview of the individual Mathematics topics should be in the main Mathematics article. I'm not sure how exactly I should "argue my case" when I think it's fairly self-evident. Perhaps you could explain how you think people use that article so I can respond directly?


 * Oh, btw, I'm still interested in this and think it's a good idea, but I've been spending much less time on Wikipedia as of late. -Halo (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your two rationales for the move, as I see it, appear to be pretty weak. 1) They are navigational, so they don't belong in articlespace. What about disambiguations? What about other lists (there are many beyond "topics in X" that you might consider "navigational"). 2) People like links to the relevant portal. So add them. Most physics articles have links to the physics portal somewhere, don't they? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally believe my rationales are strong enough to make it a worthwhile exercise. Adding lots and lots of portal links will probably require much more effort, with the links having less prominance and less of an impact compared to moving them. I agree Diambig. is a grey area and the current solution is less than ideal but we're pretty much stuck with that. Out of interest, what advantages do you see of keeping navigational lists in main space compared to portal space, aside from an appeal to tradition? -Halo (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Namespaces are a technological artifact of computer technology. You don't find them in paper publications. They exist to allow the same name to be used in more than one context. So we have an article on mathematics, a category called mathematics, a project called mathematics and a portal called mathematics. We also have discussion pages for each of the above, also named mathematics. The eight different things named mathematics are distinguished by namespace prefixes.  On Wikipedia, namespaces also serve a secondary purpose of making some information less accessible, without hiding it entirely. We keep our policies and guidelines in a separate namespace, Wikipedia, so people looking for general information in the encyclopedia won't stumble on our internal stuff by accident. None of these justifications apply here.  I see zero likelihood that anyone would want to use the name "Lists of mathematics topics" with a different meaning (except for Talk). I think we'd all be horrified if that happened. Nor do I see any reason to make "Lists of mathematics topics" harder for users to find.  Remembering to type "Portal", followed by a colon, followed by the name you are looking for is a significant added burden to a general audience. There is a reason why articles in the main namespace do not have a prefix. I think the burden is on those proposing this change to justify why it benefits our readers.--agr (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That has to be the most informative and persuasive argument I've ever read on a Talk page, and I entirely agree with its conclusion. Qwfp (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more.


 * You claim you don't find namespaces in paper publications. Except, of course, the paper publication closest to Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia Britannica's Propædia is almost exactly like what I am proposing. Every book has an index at the back, which is analogous to what I'm proposing. Every library has an index in one place which is analogous to what I'm proposing. One place where all navigation can be found in one easy to use and find way, in this case sorted by topic. Real life supports my idea.


 * Namespaces are not purely technical or to "hide information" but to help structure the encyclopedia into a logical fashion. When you see the "Wikipedia" namespace, you know it's about Wikipedia-related issues. When you see the "Category" namespace, you know it's a category. When you see the "Image" namespace, you know it's an image. When you visit the "User" namespace, you know it's a user page. When you visit the "Help" namespace, you know it's a help page. Interwiki links exist, so you know Interwiki map goes to Meta. I want it so that when you see the portal namespace, you know it's for navigation. By your own reasoning, the Portal and Help namespaces wouldn't even exist when they do, so that ship has already sailed.


 * Cross-namespace redirects will still exist, so you type in "List of Physics Articles" you will instantly get redirected to what you wanted in the first place. You won't lose anything by moving them, only gain the advantages from the added structure, making articles easier to find on Wikipedia, and improve the visibility of the portals, and I fail to see how those are bad things. -Halo (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal starts off "Currently, there are several lists in the mainspace that primarily exist for purposes of navigation, cluttering up the mainspace needlessly. " Now you are saying there will be just as many articles in the main namespace, only they will all be redirects to the Portal name space. How does that reduce clutter? Not only will we have to manage twice as many named objects in the Wikipedia system, all links to these topic lists from regular articles will have to be piped. Still more clutter. And users who get to one of our lists will see them titled "Portal:Lists of mathematics topics"; they will not know they don't need the Portal: prefix to then find List of topics in physics. This all adds another layer of confusion that is completely unnecessary. There is nothing "logical" about filing indexes under "Portal". There is no reason why indexes, if we need them, can't live in the main namespace with the articles, as they now do. --agr (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate that when asked to support what I consider weak rationales, I'm told that apparently my only rationale is "an appeal to tradition." Wikipedia is built by consensus, and if you consider supporting the consensus-built version until a better version supported by strong rationales and a new consensus an "appeal to tradition" then yes, I'm appealing to tradition. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was a question about why you're opposing it, and what those rationales are. You were saying "Your rationales are weak, therefore it shouldn't be done" to which I responded "Well, I disagree - I think they're strong rationales. What is the strong rationale for keeping it as it is now, without appealing to tradition?" which you haven't answered and instead you are apparently insulted by that request. I see very few disadvantages aside from wanting to keep the status quo. -Halo (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing it because migrating so many lists across namespaces for an arbitrary and ambiguous reason, and a rationale that is weak according to many (perhaps not you), that is absurd. Unless there's actually a good, solid, consensus-supported reason, it should not be done. That's not "appealing to tradition" that's WP:CONS. agr summed up the technical aspects quite nicely, but if you'd like me to really pick apart your "rationale" then I will...
 * Widens people's knowledge of the portal namespace
 * Irrelevant. Pages are not moved as teaching tools.
 * Adds the "portal" link to the top of each of these pages, which improves reader's navigation
 * Portal links are included in articles/talk pages frequently. Why do we need it to be a subpage of the portal just to link to the portal? (Ans: we don't.)
 * Would encourage people to link to these lists from Portals if not done already.
 * See above. If you want a link from a list or article to a portal, do it.
 * Keeps articles within the mainspace and navigation away from it
 * And it also has readers jumping back and forth between portalspace and mainspace, it creates cross-namespace redirects, and I don't see a particular reason why we should "keep... navigation away from [mainspace]." Lists are lists and they go in the mainspace. This ambiguous "navigational list" thing notwithstanding.
 * Solidifies the current hierarchy
 * I'm not sure what you're going for here, but things change on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be solidifying hierarchies.
 * Won't artificially inflate the Wikipedia articles count
 * Because that's a super big deal we should worry about, especially when it's well-understood that articlespace contains articles, redirects, lists, disambiguations, etc.
 * There are also reasons presented as to why keeping the lists where they are is sensible, and while you might think these reasons are less persuasive, that's only your opinion. You can't make such bold changes, over people's legitimate concerns and objections, based on these reasons above - especially since they're so easily refuted (again, regardless of if you believe they've been refuted well or not). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (&larr;) I also don't see any particular benefit to moving numerous lists to the Portal namespace. The "navigational" aspect of these lists is hard to quantify, so the scope of the move is unclear - isn't every list navigational in some sense? The "article count" is indeed not something that we should be concerned about - the algorithm for determining which pages are "articles" is very crude, and not intended to be very accurate. Even if there are 1000 lists moved, that would only be .05% of the current count of 2 million articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Halo" does not understand the situation
"Halo" wrote:
 * The point is that that if you're looking for an article and
 * The point is that that if you're looking for an article and

You can't get much more confused or miss the point more completely. He also wrote:
 * I'd argue that any page that primarily consists of a large amounts of links to other parts of Wikipedia without much prose is a navigational aide to help you find the correct article
 * I'd argue that any page that primarily consists of a large amounts of links to other parts of Wikipedia without much prose is a navigational aide to help you find the correct article

again missing the point with amazing completeness.

The point is that you use these lists when there isn't any article or topic you're looking for. That's called browsing. Lists of mathematics topics is extremely well-designed for that purpose and that is primarily what it's for. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will concur here. It's a good summary of some of the talking-past-each-other problems that are happening. If Halo wants to talk about "if you're looking for an article" then I can't imagine why he wouldn't want us in articlespace to begin with. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand lits - Halo, have you read WP:LIST by any chance? If you haven't, I suggest you do so before before continuing to advocate this change. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the only thing you seem to agree with is that you also disagree with me and wish to join in pulling apart what I've said with little rationale because it's obviously both fun and constructive. -Halo (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish you wouldn't call me "confused" or saying I "miss the point" - I understand the situation, the primary situation being that you disagree with me. The fact you don't seem to understand that and have decided to resort to pulling apart what I've said seems a little odd, "Michael Hardy".
 * This was a bold idea and obviously not enough people are positive about the change, enough people dislike the idea (rightly or wrongly), punctuated by the fact I don't have enough time to work on it and the fact that people would rather describe my opinion as "confused" than understand it's a difference in opinion so I've rejected it.
 * I often wish people would try and see the bigger picture, and the upsides, behind the reasoning and concepts of an idea instead of immediately focusing all their efforts on picking any idea apart based on around smaller detail and people's poor choice of wording - perhaps if we did that we'd have more positive, less controversial, changes coming out of ideas via compromise and discussion rather than just overwhelming negativity. -Halo (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's suggesting that you have bad intentions or that you are stupid or anything of the sort, but you proposed an idea that really serves no purpose, has no real benefits, and doesn't have much support. Take it or leave it, but nobody thinks less of you for proposing it - although this conversation may have been adversarial, I'm not sure that's something you can (or should) point fingers about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My 2¢. I understand and agree with both perspectives covered on this page. However, as I said above and elsewhere, I think lists of mathematics topics was a bad example-case to be using in this discussion, as pages like lists of films are unlikely(?) to become as well-finished as the lists of mathematics topics (because they're inherently unsourcable, because they're just an index of list-articles within Wikipedia). It's the purely navigational (non-encyclopedic generalistic collections) or disambig-like pages (eg lists of languages), and the topical indexes (eg List of biology topics), that I had in mind during these threads.

I do think Michael Hardy was unnecessarily condescending in his remarks in this particular thread, especially the scare-quoted "Halo". But I also understand the frustration over having lists of mathematics topics both FAR-demoted, and being discussed for a move to a less-used namespace, which I think is what his impassioned stance stems from.

There are some good ideas on this page as a whole, and in the fullness of time some of them will surely be revisited. Thanks to all for contributing to it, and good night for now :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Outlines"
with the aggressive pushing of Outlines by since May or June 2009, this problem has again become much more urgent. We are now not looking at a few scattered "lists of topics", we are looking at a concerted effort of creating a list-like shadow article for each major (and not-so-major) topic.

"Outlines" are essentially "navigational lists" reloaded, on a much larger scale, and pushed with an astounding amount of "criminal energy", to the point where full article WP:LEADs are copy-pasted to the top of the lists, the lists are touted in talkpage templates and by main templates. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Old proposal...
This is an 18 months old rejected proposal, yet I see the page has been edited recently. I would advise those interested purely to see it as historical and not to edit or try to resurrect it - some of the criticism of this proposal is now moot, and the baggage resurrecting this exact proposal wouldn't be helpful in any attempt to resurrect the core idea.

However, I firmly believe that the core idea still should be implemented, especially now there is a clearer distinction between an 'index' and an 'outline' over pure lists as the ambiguity of what an encyclopedic list was which caused this to be rejected the first time around. If someone wishes to create a similar proposal, I suggest creating a new page writing up the details of the proposal, posting it in relevant places (posting in the village pump, WP:CENT, the "lists" page, the relevant portals, proposed renames etc). -Halo (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page should remain historical only. The Transhumanist 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)