Wikipedia talk:Outlines/Archive 2

Someone turned my list into an "Outline" without asking
First, before anyone brings up WP:OWN, I know it's not "my" list, but it is on my watchlist and it's a topic where I do most of my editing, so I do get concerned when people make changes to it willy-nilly. My concern here is that someone moved the list (specifically List of curve topics) to an "Outline of" article without any mention on the talk page or making any changes to the article. This seems like a big change to make without some kind of consensus building, especially since there will need to be a lot of editing done to the article before it's a true outline and not just a list that being called an outline. I read WP:Outlines and didn't see anything about arbitrarily converting lists into outlines. If this is going to be method used for creating outlines then it should be mentioned in the "How to create an outline page" section along with some sort of guideline so that lists that should remain lists are left alone. What I did find was that Outline stubs, which is basically what the list was turned into, are candidates for AfD. I'm wondering if I need to rename article back to prevent this from happening. Though I wasn't a participant, I was generally in favor of the OOK project, but this rather rude behavior on the part of one of it's members is giving me second thoughts.--RDBury (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, not saying this justifies the rename of your list but see these discussions for consensus building, not sure if there is one more talking about skipping the topical infront. --Stefan talk 11:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion was more than a year ago and seems to be about articles that already had the "Outline" structure before the name was decided. The "Outline" concept has evolved a lot since then. Besides, I don't think archived discussions apply to current guidelines unless they were actually adopted and incorporated into them.--RDBury (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I undid the move, just so not too much time passes and it becomes a fait accompli. If someone want to justify the move according to WP policy it can be moved again.--RDBury (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline template
I have just noticed that an outline article had been tagged with duplicationmerge. It might be very useful to have an outline template at the top of each outline article with links to the root and an brief explanation what outlines are. Does something like that already exist? Cacycle (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (I un-transcluded the templates with template:tl)
 * Those tags were added by dbachmann, who has a historic dislike for outlines. See May and July in the 2 main sections under OOKDISC for numerous threads he started (and often didn't return to). He seems to have stated at User talk:Dbachmann that he intends to continue ignoring them, unless they cross his path. The thread at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists was the last time we tried to explain certain matters to him. He tends to not reply until reminded.
 * That said, the mass-moves by TT are quite troublesome. He seems to intend to reclassify every single list article into either outline or index (??). Is List of Hittite kings a target for moving, to "Outline of Hittite kings"? (My mistake. He's only renaming all the structured "list of ... topics" articles.) If he'd brought it up in discussion first, we might have been able to dissuade him. I have no time to devote to this today.


 * The only notice-like template available is Outline footer. Others (that don't fit) are all at WP:WPOOKDIR. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC) edited at 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about creating an outline infobox for the top right corner of the outline articles. That would be more visible than the footer, make these articles more distinct from normal ones, and follow established Wikipedia styles. Cacycle (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, Top-right like the Featured article star and Spokenarticle icon? I don't think that would be a good idea. There was enough opposition to a GA icon that it didn't get implemented.
 * Or, top-right like a portal box can be? (or navbox/infobox). That's a potentially good idea. What would we put in it other than a link to Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge though?
 * (Relatedly, there were a few threads discussing the possibility of adding an icon/link into the top-right of the ToC table, in outlines, and in the main articles that have associated outlines. Ask User:Penubag about this, I can't find the threads right now.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Failed?
This policy proposal seems to have failed, due to the lack of support here and strong resistance to the wholesale renaming of "list" articles to "outlines" in the mainspace. I suggest marking it as such. Verbal chat  14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support in the strongest possible terms, and suggest deletion of all extant 'outline' topics in a week, to give editors a chance to keep them on their own computers if for some reason they want them. → ROUX   ₪  15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also support this. These monstrosities are truly terrible and pointless. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. It was a bad idea in the first place. This is just another project for people who want the satisfaction of creating lots of articles quickly, without spending the effort that is involved with creating proper articles. Hans Adler 15:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a set of instructions, nothing more - This wasn't a proposal to create outlines nor a proposal concerning their naming - hundreds of "Outline of" pages existed before this set of instructions was written, and most of the outline pages existed under other names long before the use of the title "Outline of". The list guideline already covers the creation of lists of all types: outlines are structured lists.  This is just a set of instructions on how to build a good outline.  About half of the lists on Wikipedia are "structured lists", that is, outlines - and Wikipedia's list guidelines and naming guidelines do not prohibit calling an article "Outline of".  Before they were called "outlines", many of them were "Lists of basic topics", "Lists of topics", or "Topic outline of", etc.  And they all still qualify as topic lists.  By removing these instructions, all you will be doing is causing outlines and structured lists in general to have no guidance.  Renaming a collection of 500+ pages (outlines) will take a proposal in a much wider venue than this backwater page, such as at WP:VPR.  The Transhumanist  16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How interesting. When you want to rename articles, you go ahead. But when those of us who oppose this project want to, we have to seek consensus first? Thank you for so very neatly proving we've been right all along. → ROUX   ₪  16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I misjudged the response that I'd get, and I admit, I was a bit too bold in the recent batch of 50 or so topic list renames. However, I did not intend to be disruptive.  But, mass renaming 500+ well-established articles that have lots of support would be highly disruptive, and I don't recommend trying it.  Then, like me, you'll feel what its like to be the focus of public scrutiny and criticism.  (Take my word for it, it's no fun - it's like being on trial).  The Transhumanist  16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could perhaps show us where these pages are 'well supported' outside of your little walled garden. I've got plenty of time today, I can wait. → ROUX   ₪  16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit histories of the pages in the collection. In there, you will find that thousands of editors have helped develop and maintain these pages. The Transhumanist  16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong answer. You assert there is support, you need to show it to us. Ensure that anyone from your project is not included, but do show how many outside editors contribute as a percentage of the whole. → ROUX   ₪  17:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight, instead of your browsing the edit histories yourself or watchlisting the pages to easily check daily activity, you want me to spend days going through the edit histories gathering up the names of all the editors who edited them? That's an unreasonable request.  I don't have time to provide diffs of every unique editor's contribution to outlines.  There are over 500 outlines, each with dozens or more editors in the edit histories.  I'm impressed with the number of edits these things get on a daily basis, and overwhelmed that so many people have worked on them over the years.  The Transhumanist  17:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. You assert there is consensus for these things to even exist, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that. The fact that you are so very unwilling to do so, and ignore direct questions about consensus, is telling. → ROUX   ₪  17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better if instead of looking at the number of editors we looked at page views? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because pageviews don't differentiate between editors loading the page to edit and people actually reading. Besides, he's talking about internal consensus for existence. → ROUX   ₪  17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think anybody is even loading these pages. For example, Illinois has been viewed 88849 times in 200908, but Outline of Illinois has been viewed 375 times in 200908. This is a ratio of 237:1. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly filled with surprise. → ROUX   ₪  18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Here you linked to this page in a discussion where you defended this type of content forking, and I think I have seen this page linked to today in similar ways as if it was some kind of justification for undiscussed predictably controversial page moves. I don't care if this is a proposed policy, guideline, essay, process or fig leaf. The important thing is that it is just a proposal, and a failed one too. So long as we allow your instructions to remain in project space without a stamp that marks them as failed, you and your few supporters will continue to point to them as justification for your aggressive content forking. We must stop this before the damage gets too big and the mess you have produced is too big to clean up manually. I hope we are not already past that stage. Hans Adler 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make above was, that the instructions are irrelevant to the existence of outlines, as outlines and the format they have been developed in preceded these instructions. The instructions simply describe procedures and protocols that outline developers have been using for years. Without the instructions, outlines (and other topcs lists, structured lists, etc.) will continue to be developed, but without an established standard. The Transhumanist  16:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make above was that the instructions are part of your cherished walled garden, which is going to be torn down now it has come to light. Hans Adler 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines aren't a Walled garden, as a great many pages link to the outlines and their development pages. Accessibility is the whole point!  They are navigation aids for crying out loud.  Please refrain from portraying them as something they are not.  The Transhumanist  17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You say these things as though someone other than you were directly responsible. It is a walled garden because you and your merry crew are not only unwilling, but I suspect actually incapable, of understanding that other people think this is a bad and stupid idea--and then you patronise us excessively when we have the temerity to call you on it. The only reason pages link to this nonsense is because you put the links there. → ROUX   ₪  17:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we understand, it's just that we don't agree with you. If everyone agreed with you, outlines, of which there are thousands on Wikipedia (only about 500 are named "Outline of"), would not exist.  But they do exist.  It's obvious you don't like them, but your reasons against them aren't compelling enough to get others to stop making them, developing them, or maintaining them.  And I'm not the one who has been uncivil or patronizing in the majority of our interactions. The Transhumanist  17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are so many things wrong with that paragraph I don't know where to begin. How about with: it has been explained to you time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again why these nonsense pages are bad for Wikipedia, and IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it. As for not being uncivil.. you flat out called me a liar, and escaped a block solely because the admin who got involved despises me. So count your lucky stars there, kiddo. → ROUX   ₪  17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines aren't for accessibility, they are transparently for your and your friends' gratification. Yours is not the only disruptive project for building large amounts of flashy but basically useless 'articles' with minimum effort. We currently seem to have an epidemy, with other relatively recent examples including the mass creation of 'articles' of the type Colombia–Croatia relations and the mass creation of BLP stubs about barely notable German politicians based on unsourced articles in the German Wikipedia. Hans Adler 17:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are for accessibility. See Categories, lists, and navigation templates.  They're part of Wikipedia's navigation system.  Some people find them very useful, others prefer to browse articles in prose or to stick to the search box.  Wikipedia serves people of a great many learning styles.  Some people like to browse outlines, which are a form of tree structure.  The Transhumanist  17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be flabbergasted if you or one of your crew were not the one to add outlines to that page. In fact, I seem to recall you were, or was that at Lists? It's so hard to remember which is which when you lot add things to pages and then point to them as justification. → ROUX   ₪  17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN explains the role of lists in Wikipedia's navigation systems. It doesn't refer to outlines specifically. But outlines are a type of list, and that guideline covers them very nicely.  The Transhumanist  17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * so says you. and anything on policy/guideline pages referring to outlines has been invariably added by you or your crew, which you then cite as justification for existence. A bit self-serving. → ROUX   ₪  17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN preceded "Outline of" articles by years. The Transhumanist  18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, lists were the first step in this unhealthy direction. A quick glance at WP:FLC shows that Wikipedia has structures parallel to the normal ones, whose apparent purpose is to give some of our less gifted editors the illusion that they are playing in the same league as authors of featured articles. Your actions may well result in us taking the standard notability criteria a lot more seriously for all lists. In my opinion that would be a good thing. We don't need POV nightmares such as "List of police officers who died while on duty", and we don't need content forks such as most outline articles. Hans Adler 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued in next section...

It's not a proposal, but an essay
I didn't submit this as a proposal, somebody else slapped the proposal tag on it. It's an essay, describing current outline development practices. I should know, I wrote it. I've changed the tag accordingly. The Transhumanist 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's an essay begs the question: why do these things even exist when there is so much opposition to them? You have refused to show where the support is outside of WP:OOK, and Abductive demonstrated that a random outline page got just over 10 hits/day in August--which somewhat blows your theory that these are somehow 'useful' out of the water. → ROUX   ₪  18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One might also quote an edit of yours to WP:CLN: "It is not obvious to new users that categories exist, how to add items to them, how to link new categories into existing schemes, nor point of view (POV) concerns." Outlines are different.. how, exactly? → ROUX   ₪  18:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't so much what it is called; the problem is that it is in main project space. So long as it isn't tagged as failed or historical this gives it fake credibility. This page is part of a net for catching unsuspecting editors who think they find an uncontroversial part of Wikipedia with a high reward/effort ratio, when it is actually your controversial private project. Hans Adler 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history of WP:CLN is highly educational, given how much TT is relying on it here. → ROUX   ₪  18:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it was an opponent of outlines (who wants them moved) who placed the proposal tag on the page. But it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a proposal: outlines existed before it was written.  If the page is marked failed or historical, it misleadingly makes it look like outlines themselves have been rejected -- and that would be as misleading as you believe the page to be currently in the opposite direction.  But for outlines to be rejected would take a mass move proposal at WP:VPR or a deletion proposal at WP:AFD.  And for a page to be marked as failed, it has to have been proposed, and this page wasn't intended as such.  The Transhumanist  18:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have felt the need to gain consensus at VPR to start this nonsense. Why, all of a sudden, are we required to do so to end it? And rejecting the existence of outlines is quite precisely what we are doing here. That outlines existed before this page is immaterial, since you created both, and you really are just desperately wikilawyering at this point. → ROUX   ₪  18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on an answer. Or are you going to ignore it the same way you ignored Hans Adler's similar questions? → ROUX   ₪  19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for seeking consensus for the creation of an article. That's the beautiful thing about Wikipedia and why it has grown so fast.  You just type in the new name in the search box, click on the redlink presented after "You may create the page", and start editing away.  The portal project once tried to set up an approval process for portals, but it was shut down by the community.  The Transhumanist  22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as predicted: TT adds Outlines to WP:CLN. And then cites CLN as justification. Do we really need to keep putting up with this nonsense? → ROUX   ₪  18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But did you actually read it? Was the statement you are citing true?  It is.  So what are you complaining about exactly? The Transhumanist  18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I read it. Don't you remember how many places you've spammed Outlines? You added Outlines to that page, and are now citing that page as justification for the existence of outlines. You don't see a problem here? → ROUX   ₪  18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I cited that page to show lists' role in the navigation of Wikipedia. Outlines happen to be lists, so it covers them as well, and it did so even before an outline example was added to the page.  The WP:OOK page is the top page for one of the various navigation systems of Wikipedia:


 * The statement is entirely true. It's the usefulness of outlines for navigating Wikipedia that I'm citing as the justification for their existence.  I also believe that they have the potential to be greatly improved.  But we can't improve them if they don't exist.  The Transhumanist  19:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have yet to prove this alleged usefulness in navigation. Abductive's random check above seems to disprove it. → ROUX   ₪  19:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A single random check doesn't prove anything. You need to prove that they are detrimental to the project.  If you are so certain that outlines should not exist, post an AfD on them.  At AfD, the consensus does not appear to be on your side:
 * Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics (Nov 2005) - delete (resurrected at DRV in 2009)
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic computer science topics (March 2006) - no consensus
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic visual arts and design topics (May 2006) - delete. Replaced by List of basic visual arts topics and List of basic design topics
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic industrial topics (Aug 2006) - speedy keep
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic management topics (Aug 2006) - keep
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic Canada topics (March 2008) - keep
 * Articles for deletion/List of basic mining topics (Aug 2008) - keep
 * Articles for deletion/Topic outline of algebra (Jan 2009) - keep (also nominated: Topic outline of arithmetic, Topic outline of calculus, Topic outline of geometry, Topic outline of mathematics)
 * Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science (Jan 2009) - keep
 * Articles for deletion/Outline of South Africa (May 2009) - speedy keep
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia (June 2009) - speedy keep
 * Articles for deletion/Outline of Palestine (July 2009) - keep
 * I've got to go. We're just going around in circles now.  The Transhumanist  19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Only going in circles due to your virtuoso application of WP:IDHT. I can't be bothered looking at those right now, but I would be astonished if many of the keep votes came from people unaffiliated with your project. And no, you are the one arguing there is benefit. You need to show the benefit. You need to show the consensus--or are you just going to keep telling us we need to get VPR consensus to get rid of it, while merrily doing whatever you like? Because that's certainly what it looks like, particularly since you are ferociously intent upon ignoring such questions. That is, of course, educational; you refuse to answer them because there is no answer that can make you look good here. → ROUX   ₪  19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics ended in a delete, but the page was recreated as Outline of Islam. There is also a Index of Islamic and Muslim related articles. What's up with that? Abductive  (reasoning) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I could see the deleted version I'd compare them. → ROUX   ₪  19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That outline was resurrected at Deletion Review on June 7th, and it was renamed on June 15. See Deletion review/Log/2009 June 7. The Transhumanist  22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the seeming duplication of Index of Islamic and Muslim related articles? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not duplication, as the articles are not copies of each other. They have a key difference: format.  One is an outline, and the other is an alphabetical index.  It's like the difference between the table of contents and index of a book.  They cover the same book, but in different ways.  Wikipedia supports both structured lists and alphabetical lists, and has done so since before the List guideline was written in 2003. The Transhumanist  22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This distinction was not kept in many of the moves of alphabetical lists and indicies to outlines. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hans: WP:MAINSPACE refers to article-space. Did you mean "projectspace" (Wikipedia:...)? Namespaces are a thorny issue. I can refer you to past discussions, if you haven't seen them already.
 * Roux and Hans: They've existed since 2001. TT didnt start the project, so he had zero obligation/expectation to take it to VPR. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Sometimes I identify them in my mind, because the important point is that they are both collaborative namespaces, in contrast to userspace that carries less authority because it implicitly says: This is not speaking for the community. Corrected. Hans Adler 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He does, however, have the obligation to seek consensus for pagemoves and other changes. The most basic look at his talkpage history indicates severe opposition to this whole thing, which he ignores.
 * I've already admitted that I misjudged the response I'd receive from the latest batch of renames. As for the "opposition to the whole thing", that comes from those who don't like outlines in general and who wish them gone.  They object to their creation in the first place.  While I don't ignore them, I certainly don't agree with them.  There is no requirement on Wikipedia to acquire approval before creating an article.  Never has been.  All any Wikipedian has to do to create a new article is type in a new name in the search box and click on the redlink provided.  This privilege is as central to Wikipedia as the First Amendment (freedom of speech) is to the United States.  And it's why we've passed the 3 million article mark in under 9 years.  Wikipedia rocks!  The Transhumanist  22:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What you ignore is the issue of renaming articles without consensus or discussion on talk pages. The right to "create" an article on Wikipedia is not in dispute, and is not what is being discussed, this is another smokescreen (one of many) that you select when this is being discussed.. The issue is whether you have gained consensus to rename and reformat existing articles, that is a discussion that you choose to ignore or use a smokescreen akin to the one that you have used above. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue has been blown completely out of proportion and it is sad to see that one of the participating editors had to be blocked for attacking Transhumanist. Depicting the outline project as a fringe private project is an affront to all the contributors and to the readers using this way of navigation. Contrary to what the small number of vocal opponents try to make it appear, the outline project is widely accepted throughout Wikipedia and it is one of several ways for indexing and navigating Wikipedia. As said earlier, thematic lists have existed much longer than the outlook project that tries to standardize, to improve, and to hierarchically connect them. In most cases, simply renaming such existing list pages to better reflect their content is uncontroversial.

However, I can also see that there are list pages were something as simple as renaming could compromise a hard-reached consensus, were editors have issues with the chosen name, or were editors feel outpaced by the large number and speed of the renaming. These are all valid issues and everybody involved should try hard to fix them and to avoid them in the future. But letting this grow into a personal witch hunt or using it to sabotage the outline project is simply not acceptable. Everybody involved, including Transhumanist, please be more considerate. Cacycle (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusations of lying, baiting and not assuming good faith (all of which led to the personal attack and one sided block mentioned above) should stop, indeed should never have started. Verbal chat  17:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Roux said "my goal is to have the entire stupid OOK project deleted." back in August. That, and the fallaciously invented quotations at WQA, makes good faith a bit complicated... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you fail to take the moral high ground. Sigh. Verbal chat  20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wishing to get a useless project deleted has nothing to do with bad faith. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the project is useless. Therefore basing an assumption of bad faith on this just because you think it isn't useless is inappropriate. Hans Adler 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the underlying problem is the outlines themselves. There is pretty good evidence that they are not an aide to navigation, that they are not being used, that they are a waste of time to create and maintain, that they are aesthetically displeasing, and they are disruptive to Wikipedia. I predict that most of them will not survive in the long term. Unlike some of the editors here, I can see a place for a limited number of outlines on Wikipedia, perhaps in PortalSpace. The country outlines are also not necessarily garbage, since they are a mirrors of CIA factbook listings. But I think that many of the others are goners. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Outline of Italy" reminds me of a boot. I hope that's in the article... Verbal chat  21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is worse than that. Try looking at these four pages Portal:Japan, Index of Japan-related articles, Outline of Japan and Japan. Each in its own right could claim to be the primary location to which a user might look for information on Japan (i.e. to NAVIGATE for other information on JAPAN). Yet we now have, IMHO, a single "legitimate" page Japan (Simple!!) and three "imposters"; Portal:Japan, Index of Japan-related articles, Outline of Japan. Talk about making navigation easy for user trying to find information on "Japan"!! I think this whole issue needs wider deabte in order that the community does not duplicate content for users trying to find informationand/or navigate their way around articles on Japan. As the "Highlander" says, "there can only be one!". Bhtpbank (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

well, the project is stupid, and it is essentially the hobby-horse of a single user with no regard for consensus, no faculty of absorbing criticism and very limited social graces. In other words, it is a problem. I don't know about "deleting" this project, but if this page is an "essay", I submit that it is an user essay and should be userified. The Transhumanist should be invited to continue developing article index pages, which he can name "outlines" if it pleases him, strictly as sub-pages of Portal:Contents. This would be the most straightforward and least antagonistic solution to this giant mess. TT could continue doing whatever it is he is trying to do, but he will be out of the community's hair. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say, slash and burn the outlines, and salt the page with preservatives. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They've existed since 2001 (under different names).
 * If you would like to join the discussion of how to organize Wikipedia's navigational structures, that would be helpful. Overreaction is not helpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is being reported to WP:RFC due the the recent blocking of an editor and a lot of heated debate. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can start an RfC, but it isn't a "report to" type of noticeboard. (Editors get temporarily blocked all the time - that is a separate matter, and should be irrelevant to any discussion you start on outlines themselves.)
 * If you're going to start a neutral RfC, then at least use a comprehensive example or two, such as:
 * Mathematics, Portal:Mathematics, Category:Mathematics (List of mathematics categories), Lists of mathematics topics, Index of mathematics articles, Mathematical jargon, Outline of mathematics, Template:Mathematics-footer. (Providing navigation for the ~6,500 articles, according to WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0).
 * For Japan there is: Japan, Portal:Japan, Outline of Japan, Category:Japan (Category:Japan-related lists), and Index of Japan-related articles. (covering ~23,000 articles, according to WikiProject Japan/Assessment).
 * It's not simple, so please make that abundantly clear. (and read some of the past threads, if you haven't already.). There are namespace issues and naming issues and content issues and scope issues and more. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OutlineSpace
As per Harej 05:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC), move all outlines to an OutlineSpace. Outlines have proven confusing when discovered in mainspace. They read like weird, meatless articles, if you are not meaning to search an outline. As an outline, if you are used to outlines, they work quite well. Also, as per Microsoft, they lean themselves to developing content tables (which is something poorly done at the moment). It’s all a good idea, given that navigation (excluding searches and linking) within wikipedia is one wikipedia’s two weakest points. The category system is too primitive to do every job, and templates are only of use within a limited conceptual range before they become too large. Stop moving lists to outlines, but fork them instead, and let’s see what works betters (I think outlines will win over lists, but as lists started first, a transition might not be easy). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Said "OutlineSpace" exists, it is Portal:Contents/Outline_of_Knowledge. This has subpages such as Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Mathematics and logic and there is no conceivable reason why outline of chocolate shouldn't just reside at Portal:Contents/Outline_of_Knowledge/Chocolate. The utility of this "OutlineSpace" is quite another matter, but then we're not going to discuss the utility of every Portal: page on Wikipedia in any case. I do not follow your argument at all, seeing that "outlines" are just hierarchical lists of articles and may be mapped bijectively onto our hierarchical category system. There is no conceivable advantage of "outlines" over categorization. Now if outlines were generated as representations of category trees, that would be nifty indeed, but just having "outlines" compiled manually by peon editors is just a huge waste of man-hours imho. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned to you many times before, and ignored by you an equal number of times (a highly disrespectful approach on your part), portal space is inadequate for hosting outline pages for several reasons:
 * outlines are articles (list articles), not portals. (Additionally, if a type of article is to be enhanced by having its own namespace, that namespace should be configured to the benefit of that article type, not to its detriment).
 * portal space is not included in Wikipedia searches by default
 * when portal space is included in searches (by reconfiguring one's settings), the results are virtually unreadable because of the subpage structure of portals, their cryptic page names, and the thousands of irrelevant matches that choke the results. Thus, moving outlines to portalspace would effectly bury them, which is nearly the same as deleting them in the first place. Not good.
 * outlines with subpages in their titles would be cumbersome and extremely tedious to work with. Typing "Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Subject" into the search box (for page finding, page jumping, and page creation) would get very tiresome very quickly.
 * Additional reasons include:
 * outlines in a namespace called "Outline:" would have shorter titles, and that would be a good thing. Compare "Outline of geography" with "Outline:Geography".
 * but, moving outlines out of article space at all is a questionable rename option, because cross-namespace links are frowned upon, and links integrated into the body of articles (where the links lead to outlines in another namespace) are unlikely to receive widespread support. It smacks of burying them.  And I'm diametrically opposed to deleting or burying outlines.  Creating a namespace just for them would be far better than burying them in portal space, but it would still be a huge compromise as leaving them in article space.
 * association with portals would be a bad thing. Portals are in decline.  Outlines are under aggressive progressive development.
 * we're having trouble with the long pathnames in OOK WikiProject's draftspace, and we would like to apply what we've learned from this negative experience by not repeating it! A link to a page there looks something like this: WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of whatever.  As mentioned before, working with such long titles is cumbersome and extremely tedious - creating that draftspace has proved to be self-inflicted torture. Please do not subject us to further torture of this type. Let us benefit from our firsthand experience.
 * I wouldn't agree to a move of outlines to an "Outline:" namespace until after the search feature was reprogrammed to support such a namespace. Moving them to such a namespace and then waiting for the search box to be reprogrammed to include them is a very bad strategy, as it would constitute interim burying of indefinite duration.  I'm against burying or deleting outlines.
 * Getting an "Outline:" namespace approved in the first place is problematic at best and likely to fail, making it highly probable that making such a proposal would be a waste of time.
 * For the reasons mentioned above, I'm opposed to moving outline articles out of article space. Burying outlines is nearly as bad as deleting them. To lose outlines in such a way would negatively impact the encyclopedia. The best option for the support of outlines and for outlines' synergistic support of the encyclopedia is to leave them in article space.  Sincerely, The Transhumanist  04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RE Additional reason #2. Cross-name space links are not are not by default frowned upon.  To mainspace links are perfectly OK.  Outline space to mainspace links would obviously be fine.  Mainspace to Outlinespace links would need to be considered carefully.  I suspect that they'd be OK in specially places, navigation places, dabpages, in hatnotes, but almost never inline.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RE Additional reason #5. I would fork some examples.  Get the search thing sorted.  Then proceed.
 * RE Additional reason #6. It seems clearly a good idea to me.  No real drawbacks.  TT can do this out of others' hair.  If it doesn't work, it is well contained.  If it does work, it is in the right place.  If we can agree here, post a note at the village pump, and failing objections, expand from Outline:Outlines --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with TT that moving outlines out of mainspace is a bad idea. Outlines should only contain a derivative of mainspace, only organised.  This makes it different.  Better to get the search issue sorted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Expandable trees?

 * I've always thought an expandable tree representation of categories would be nice, and this would dovetail nicely. Where can we suggest this? Developers village pump? Verbal chat  11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either WP:VPT, or check out Template:Category tree and mw:Extension:CategoryTree as those might already do much of what you want. (I think they'd be useful within outlines, and maybe even some articles, and keep meaning to investigate the possibilities. Never enough time though.) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interactive tree expansion and collapsing of outlines is a standard viewing feature of outliners, and such functionality could be added to Wikipedia via many approaches. Such a feature would be far more useful than category trees. And that's just for starters. The Transhumanist  04:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need these silly misnamed "outlines" to do it, is the point. Verbal  chat  10:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The interactive tree won't happen in a feasible way that can replace outlines. ..And they don't have to; outlines do the job perfectly. -- penubag  (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what job? Perfectly?? Right. That's why there's no consensus and mass opposition. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines do the job of auto-generating the navigation aid of a table of contents, in microsoft word. It can do a similar thing here.  What we need is that every article have exactly one link from an outline (anymore are crosslinks, and they belong in the article, as we do).  This is a good idea, and consensus is not needed to act on good ideas.  The closest thing I see to "mass opposition" is the opposition to the reformatting of existing List articles.  Agreed, stop doing that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Propose a totally separate WikiOutlines website (like WikiQuote, WikiSource) as part of the wiki empire, and stop vandalising list pages and cluttering the mainspace. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that outlines shouldn't mean vandalising list pages, and that they don't belong in mainspace proper, outlines do definitely belong within the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? And why with the bad names? They duplicate functionality already provided, and according to our guidelines are lists. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because navigation, specifically directed browsing, of wikipedia, is really poor. A new start in an experimental space is justified, given the very poor development of content navigation.  Lateral think=ing should be encouraged.  Inter-article wiki links work great.  The search functionality is recently improving a lot.  But we need better.  If outlines can do it, great. If they can't, we don't have to continue experimenting (as long as Lists, or portals are don't warped).  What do you mean about "bad names"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad names = "outline of", for example "outline of circles" is a recent ridiculous name, and doesn't follow good practice of least surprise. The article is a list, not an outline (the "circle" article is an outline), and it isn't about the outline of circles. It's also a poor pun which TTH thought was a plus. Another example are the country articles, these are just silly. "Outline of Italy", if it had any reason to exist at all, should be about the borders and physical outline of the country (ie, it looks like a boot...). The list that is at this article name should be named a list (which according to WP:CLT can be structured by topic, or other ways) if i should exist at all. There is no need for the extra burden, duplication, bureaucracy, and non-standard naming of the outline project. These are just a few reasons. I can see how some of the content of some of these articles could be useful, but not in this format or this way. This is a huge sink of time and effort. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree about "Outline of...". That's part of the reason for putting the outlines in some quarantined outline space.  I see no bureaucracy reason to not do this, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, I don't see why others shouldn't be left to work in their own way.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we mostly agree. What should also stop is the addition of more "outlines" to mainspace, an perhaps those that aren't useful as lists should be moved back into this project until they have an "outline" space (topic space might be a better name, or navigation). <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Transhumanist ignores this discussion and continues anyway
User:The Transhumanist has, here at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, given up trying to defend his actions ("List" to "Outine" pages moves), and is instead relying on faster editing and momentum to overcome critical commentary and even opposition. Trying to revert his actions is not the way go. I think the appropriate course of action in an Requests for comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some brave admin can finally ban TT for his blatant disregard of Wikipedia's idea of CONSENSUS/BRD. This has been going on for too long. TT is doing mass edits against consensus. This isn't the same as a simple revert war, because the work load he imposes on us in reverting him is much greater. I will issue yet another warning to TT. If nobody else acts, and this still goes on, let me know and I will do it (and post the block to ANI for review). --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * TT claims here that he has ceased doing mass moves and has warned me that any further action against him will be futile and backfire. I have refuted this on the basis that there continues to be complaints on his talk page.


 * I think we need to amass evidence of TT's actions and in particular evidence to support his violation of WP:CONSENSUS. I propose that we gather a list (or outline) of his page moves along with diffs to the talk pages which show wether or not he has attempted to discuss the proposed move with the community. If we can show that he is making a substantial number of page moves and there has been no dicssussion of article talk pages then I think we have sufficient ammunition go to WP:ANI and get him stopped. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an example Talk:List of robotics topics. Thsi page was recently moved as per and


 * The talk page mentions that outlines are being considered, and asks for input, but there is NOTHIN on any impending page move, and hence NO attempt to agree consensus. The proposal is over a year old, and is therefore irrelevant in the context of recent page moves.
 * Now we have a page Outline of robotics that redirects to Index of robotics which does not exist!! This is getting out of hand, and is not making navigation for users any better.


 * We need more examples like this to demonstrate how TT has been behaving. Bhtpbank (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an edit war that has been started and provoked by User:Verbal and I have already issued a warning on his talk page (User_talk:Verbal). As far as I can see, Verbal has started his renamings to make a point that the project Outline_of_Knowledge should find explicit consensus before making *any* changes. In contrast to that, Verbal has started to rename pages from "Outline of" to "List of", some of them repeatedly, without any previous discussion or consensus, and some of them were actually outlines from their very beginning. His behavior is disruptive to the outline project and the existing content categorization system and it escalates his conflict with The Transhumanist. This is exactly the kind of behavior described on Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and if Verbal does not stop his disruptions he will have to be blocked to stop further damage.

This is actually part of a larger conflict in which a small number of very vocal, dedicated, and perseverent opponents are working against the project Outline of Knowledge in a rather disruptive way that includes the issue described above as well as hustling-like behaviour against The Transhumanist on his talk page. They work under the assumption that this project has no consensus, but have failed so far to provide any evidence for this. I am not sure how to proceed with this larger issue, they are obviously trying to escalate this to a higher level of dispute resolution. Any ideas? Cacycle (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are treading on extremely thin ice. TT is just as at fault for reasons that I have explained many times over (lack of consensus, no explanation on talk page etc.). For TT to move pages is OK, but to revert is not, because it is making a point! Cummon, you have to try harder than that. TT could also be accused of being disruptive in much the same way.  He has been warned on his talk page many times, and by numerous editors of his behavior (including Charles Matthews), yet he continues. Continuing to make controversial edits in the face of opposition, without altering your ways (i.e. trying to get consensus) is just as much a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Bhtpbank (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous and unsupportable personal attack Cacycle makes. TT was the first mover, he provoked the actions (not an edit war but WP:BRD. He should stop controversially moving articles without consensus. Undoing these contentious moves is to be encouraged, not described as the first step in an edit war. The outline project seems to be wrapped in misleading statements and untruths, and causing further disruption. This entire project is rapidly becoming disruptive. I will not be blocked for reverting moves made against consensus; I cannot say the same for editors who continue to move first and attempt a fait accompli. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, if you disagree with an edit, revert it and then discuss civilly. I see no suggestions from bhtpbank or verbal above replies on how to resolve the situation. Please stay on topic Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to gain consensus to see if lists and outlines can coexist (discussion below), this is obviously a volatile debate, and discussions and points are being made off specific topic. If we could all editors could agree to stop renaming articles and instead let them coexist then other issues could be addressed in a more civil fashion. This doesn't prevent outlines (or indeed lists) being created and a better idea of how outlines might work could be achieved. Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines are lists. The utility of a certain style of list is a different question. The chocolate "outline" is a particularly poor example. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You state that before the thread entitled ' outlines and lists' is finished. Please post arguments to the relevent discussion. Chocolate was editted by dabs at the same time as he cited it as a bad example - this is (in my book_ very wrong. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Essence Project
Hi, I am starting a new Wiki-Project, and I think you might be interested in it. It is called "Essence of". The idea is to bring togther, "list of", "Outline of", "Topics on" under a single article that will become the "portal of knowledge" to any given subject area. Ultimately it will become policy and the outlines and lists etc. will be superseded. As this will complement all of Wikipedia's existing policies, no consensus should be required. Fancy helping out? Bhtpbank (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

List AND Outlines
Ok, I've seen this suggested before - sorry I haven't time to follow whole discussion. The main sticking point seems to be the moving of lists to outlines, so the answer is keep the lists and if an outline is required duplicate the list into a new outline article. AS for the arguments about the actual existence or use of outlines, I myself switch methods browsing subjects ( i.e I use links from articles, go to a category to find related articles, and search box ) and can envisage some people will prefer to browse by a list, others by an outline, its all a matter of taste and how our brain works best - and we're all different :) So leave the lists in place, create the outlines as an extra and let the organics of WikiPedia have its say! Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much agree. There are many ways of navigating, and almost as many preferences.  Search algorithms are fantastic, but not for every need.  Categories, lists and templates are great, but there are shortcomings.  There's a lot of good stuff in Portals, but they have a style that is not the same as outlines.  Providing good navigation is a high order task.  If we're compiling the sum of all knowledge, it's going to take a massive amount of navigational structure to make it all accessible to all people.  Content itself shouldn't be forked, but there is no reason to not fork navigation aides.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But they should be called "lists", and not duplicate existing lists. The "outline of" naming scheme is part of the problem. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Outline of" is widely used in real life such as in Brittanica. I believe for most cases, outlines superceed lists and should. I hardly see "list of" as published as outlines because the term, "list" is ambiguous. -- penubag  (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is worse than just renaming. An equally important issue is that of articel content. In other words, are list articles simply being renbamed as outlines, but without any real change in content of purpose.  If outlines are that good that they supersede lists, then there ought to be a noticeable difference in their content, structure and style. I see little change, other than renaming. I don't really have an issue with outlines, per se, but they need to demonstrate that they are a quite different thing to lists, and I see none. This appears to be a pet project of TT, and that is all. All is now see is competition for navigation between portals, lists, outlines, indexes (remember them) and main articles.  See Japan if you need any further evidence of this. Japan has all of these (and perhaps more!) Bhtpbank (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Competition can be good for improvement, but I don't see why they can't coexist and compliment each another - as previously stated each person has an individual preference for the way they access information and we should provide as wide a variety as possible. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A very good point, and one that goes to the very heart of the problem that has been debated here and on the talk pages of TT (and on a Wikiquette Alert). TT is NOT allowing them to co-exist. He is simply renaming any articles that start "List of", that he feels are suitable for becoming an "Outline of" and moving the page. There is no discussion on the talk page, no attempt to gain consensus or agreement for the move, nor any description of how the move will make the page better. More importantly, if "Oultines" are different to "Lists", there is not any attempt to explain to editors (unless you are part of the cabal that supports oultines) how they are different and how to edit the page in future so as conform to the styles and rules that outlines require (presumably in order to facilitate the navigation improvements that TT claims). So this is why a number of ediotrs are getting upset by what TT is doing. The main argument that TT put forwards is that "they are a good thing" and point to a link to the project. He can do this, because he claims that he does not need consensus for his actions.


 * So can lists and outlines co-exist? The answer according to TT is NO, and that is part of the problem. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One shouldn't presume anothers answers, but I presume you think they could co-exist yourself? Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  14:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can I start from the end to find some common ground, If 'outlines' have the potential to develop into something that is quite different to 'lists' can they and should they coexist? Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And then onto what seems to be the meat of the issue (from verbal and bhtpbanks concerns) Do outlines have the potential to be different enough to lists to to exist in themselves ? ( could do with a good example of a list vs a completed outline) Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, outlines such as this project creates are largely useless and full of irrelevant and possibly confusing information, generally without enough context to really make sense to the reader. A proper outline would essentially be a slimeed-down version of the main topic article (start with the TOC on the main article and add enough context and lower-level links to make sense).  Unfortunately, that is essentially a content fork, which is prohibited by wikipedia policy. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference: valid list articles are lists of encyclopedic items, such as list of British monarchs. The implication is that "British monarch" is an encyclopedic topic, and that there are numerous notable British monarchs with notability of their own which can usefully be listed, e.g. in chronological order, and a cleanly delineated scope of what items can or cannot be listed. "Outlines" on the other hand do not list encyclopedic items. "outline of chocolate" is very different from a hypothetical "list of notable chocolate brands" in that it lists Wikipedia articles loosely collected with chocolate. Say, anything in Category:Chocolate, or all terms wikilinked from the chocolate artilcle, stripped of their context. This makes "outline of choclate" invalid as a list article. It is, rather, an index of articles found on Wikipedia, or a quick brainstorming on links that could usefully be included in an article on chocolate. This may or may not be useful as an indexing effort to Wikipedia's coverage on chocolate, but it is not a list article that has any business being in main namespace. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I note with dismay that besides outline of chocolate, there is  Index of chocolate-related articles, also in article namespace. This is getting surreal, I don't know whether I should laugh, weep, or make random blubberig noises at this. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's twice these 'index' things have been mentioned - I assumed they were an artifact - but the index of chocolate started 11 June this year. I also assumed they'd have an attached category e.g. 'index' but nope. I note that someone has already tagged the index of chocolate with a 'merge proposal' Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline of chocolate is also great as an illustration of the utter nonsensical stuff the WOOKies make us put up with. Read this and weep: This is, apparently, an article on chocolate stripped of all finite verbs (although the copula creeps back in beginning in bullet level three for unknown reasons), and with every sentence for some reason indented one level in a bullet list. WTF? It's not a list, it's a really crappy article that was further tortured in terms of layout and grammar, and then moved to a nonsensical title to be left to die as a shocking example. --dab (𒁳) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Source
 * Cocoa bean
 * Grown on the Cacao tree
 * Majority of cocoa beans produced in Western Africa
 * 43% Sourced from Côte d'Ivoire, see Cocoa production in Côte d'Ivoire
 * The tree may have originated in the foothills of the Andes in the Amazon and Orinoco basins of South America
 * There are three main cultivar groups of cacao beans used to make cocoa
 * The most prized, and expensive is the Criollo Group, the cocoa bean used by the Maya
 * Only 10% of chocolate is made from Criollo, which is less bitter and more aromatic than any other bean.
 * The cacao bean in 80% of chocolate is made using beans of the Forastero Group
 * Forastero trees are significantly hardier than Criollo trees, resulting in cheaper cacao beans
 * Trinitario, a hybrid of Criollo and Forastero, is used in about 10% of chocolate.
 * Looks like you found one of the contentious articles that was part of the origin of these discussions ... Most articles are in development, I'm not sure this is a good example of what outlines are trying to do, I'd like to see one that is considered fairly complete - with a relevant list that is also considered adequate ( and if a suitable main article is available) that too ! Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab, I have just seen that you edited 'Outline of chocolate' as, even during citing it as an example. I am highly uncomfortable with this and don't think you should have quoted it as an example. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked that same question here and was told that these two outlines are among the best on the project: Outline_of_anarchism and Outline of forestry. I am unconvinced that these are helpful; it looks more like someone's ideal of how the parent article should be structured - a content fork. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is my list of Japan:

Index of Japan-related articles redirect from List of Japan-related articles, Outline of Japan, Category:Japan, Japan ,Portal:Japan

This shows that outlines are simple confusing and un-necessary. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not just lists that outlines are competing with, there are also Categories, the See also sections that appear at the bottom of articles and navbox templates. I personally think there is a possible niche for outlines as a distinct type of article but the present effort seems to accomplish little but antagonize people working in other projects (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics). Perhaps there needs to be a wider discussion of the goals and guidelines of this project. The Outline of chocolate article seems like a good example of what not to do and the negative reaction that is the result. If it's a typical example of the kind of article that OOK is going to create then I think it's going to be hard to convince people that a 5th interlink method is appropriate.--RDBury (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say RDBury, apart from 'see also' which I thought was frowned upon .. if a link couldn't be put into context within an article then it doesn't deserve to be there, rather than just putting a link with no explanation! Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Outline of chocolate is a good example of what not to do, but I am perplexed, I found the other outlines to my liking. Particularly the Japan Outline vs Lists shows the difference between the two, lists full comprehensive coverage, outline good browse of important topics. To me the question of is there a difference is answered, also they both have pros and cons so complement each another and should be kept separate Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first section of outline of chocolate is bizarre, to be sure, but the rest of it is really good. I ended up here trying to find out more about outlines and how they could help in photography-related articles, the content structure of which is appalling, and outlines look to be the perfect tool. Maybe I missed mention of it upthread, but people are clear that listed content organised by structure is very different to lists in alphabetical order, right? This is a key reason why outlines are so useful. Of course they have the same content as indices or other lists, thats the whole point – we need this stuff organised in a structured way as much as any other, much the same way as a library works: same books, different search. Maybe some subject areas aren't so well-disposed to outlining, but I've read several over the last few days that have been very informative, even revelatory, especially in subjects with which I'm unfamiliar, which were awful, impenetrable mazes as lists and categories. We desperately need this approach for photography articles. Please don't let the negativity here (based on editor methodology, I note, rather than any credible argument against utlines per se) deter or detain this effort. If it's all coming down to what we call them, make them "content of" (for countries, shapes, etc) or add "(content)" to the title, maybe. --mikaultalk 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am retracting my assessment of outline of chocolate as it was recently edited by the user citing it. I am half asleep now but your comments sound promising and thought out though will check back in later. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The big difference between a normal Wikipedia list and an outlines is that normal lists stand on their own while outlines are part of a hierarchical navigation by topic scheme that is actively developed and maintained by the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. Because they are part of a a tree structure, it does not make sense to discuss the right to exist at the level of individual outline articles and it makes the recent undiscussed and controversial changes of outlines into normal lists even more disruptive with consequences beyond the individual "list". The Wikipedia way to deal with bizarre or unfinished sections would be to work on them, not to delete or rename the article. Cacycle (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some dangerous comments in the above contribution by Cacycle. One stands out: "(Outlines) are actively developed and maintained by the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge". Sounds like we now have WP:OWN and WP:CABALS issues to be dealt with. I must confess that I see little evidence of "tree structures" in the putlines that I have looked at. This issue will now be raised at WP:RFC as it is clearly getting out of hand. I am still compiling evidence from the edit history of TT (and some others) to present. Bhtpbank (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dangerous? Are you serious? That reads to me like a rational, level-headed assessment of the status quo, by a relatively neutral party. If there's a cabal involved in promoting this concept, please, let me know where I sign up. If it's RfC you want, bring it on, I'm fairly sure it will vindicate the value of this project.--mikaultalk 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is dangerous. The comments are contrary the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. It suggests that an immediate block of those involved is required to prevent further damage being done to the Wikipedia project by editors that do not uphold the fundamental principles. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any fundamental contradiction there. Nor any rationale supporting a block for bringing the subject up. Could you please elaborate? --mikaultalk 09:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about dangerous but it does seem to me that some of the actions of the people involved in the OOK project violate the spirit of WP:OWN. The OOK simply can't be done by a small group because it's going to need help from people with specialized knowledge in specific areas. I looked at the outline for my specialty Outline of geometry and almost immediately found a glaring, almost laughable error that someone with knowledge of the subject would have caught had they worked on it. Btw, I still don't see anything in the above discussion that shows that Outline of geometry is not a content fork of List of geometry topics. It sounds like Cacycle is saying "We OOK people are going to come in and solve all these problems." But that's not the wiki way, it should be more like "We OOK people are going to ask everyone to help solve all these problems and suggest how it might be done."--RDBury (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been many notices to wikiprojects, asking for help/participation with developing the associated outlines. For example I left this note in November 2007 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_31.
 * Various OoK members have added banners to associated talkpages of articles or wikiprojects. - Some people object to the "spammish" nature, or "motivational" writing style that some of these notices (or "recruitment drives") have had. Some people appreciate the headsup, and end up joining the wikiproject, or just working on one of the outlines.
 * Those geometry lists (outline and topic list) should definitely be merged. I don't think anyone would object to that at all. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines in Propaedia and in general print
There seems to be some confusion as to whether "Outline of" is a common or appropriate term.

See these photographs from the Propaedia: Then see these general searches for book titles:
 * Propaedia title page
 * Section on logic 1/2
 * Section on logic 2/2
 * Section on cosmos 1/2
 * Section on cosmos 2/2
 * "Outline of" - Amazon
 * "Outline of" - Google Books

Or more specifically: etc.
 * "Outline of geography" - Google Books

Hopefully that partially clears up at least one of the points of disagreement/misunderstanding. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it how you guys always insist you are "clearing up confusion" or "misunderstanding", as opposed to recognizing that it is possible to disagree with you without any misunderstanding involved. Seriously, this makes you sound like crazy religionists out to explain how only "confusion" can be the reason why most people won't subscribe to your guru / your salvation scenario.


 * It is undisputed that the term "outline" has been used before in roughly the sense you intend. Besides other applications of the term, as in the "outline of geography", which refers to a bleeding monograph, like, full of prose. Oh, and probably most of the other 79k hits for "outline of" you googled, wth was that?)


 * Also check out Propaedia article:
 * Introduced in 1974 with the 15th edition, the Propædia and Micropædia were intended to replace the Index of the 14th edition; however, after widespread criticism, the Britannica restored the Index as a two-volume set in 1985.
 * "widespread criticism" sound familiar? s seems like the Britannica editors were able to absorb that.
 * Also check out how the Propaedia was set apart from the actual encyclopedia, in a separate volume, from the beginning, not sort of merged into the main text. That would pretty much correspond to keeping your outlines under Portal:Contents, out of main namespace, the suggestion you so stubbornly decide you cannot hear.


 * It is also undisputed that it is in principle possible to compile a proper "outline" of any topic in the sense you intend, although I am still waiting to see an actual example of that. The question is, what are these outlines doing in article namespace, seeing that they clearly are neither list articles in our narrow definition, nor encyclopedic articles. --dab (𒁳) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is in part because of EB's version of OOK that I still believe that this project has potential, regardless of the implementation so far. The argument is inconclusive however in that 1) EB is a paper encyclopedia and you can't always say that what is good for paper is also good for web, 2) the EB OOK is not competing with a whole gamut of navigation methods as in Portal:Contents.--RDBury (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dab:
 * The Britannica did not eliminate the Propaedia, they just added the index volumes back. The photographs above are from the 2002 edition. Similarly, we have both indexes and outlines for many subjects.
 * We all agree that mainspace is not perfect. But it isn't perfect for disambiguation pages either (nor indexes, glossaries, lists of lists, timelines, year articles (eg 1777 and Category:1777), etc etc etc). - We've said countless times that anyone is welcome to start an RfC or VP proposal to create a new namespace, and I compiled a list of previous discussion/proposals of such, in an attempt to help you. But so far in Wikipedia's history, navigational pages have always been part of mainspace, because that's the only place that readers can easily find them. - It's not simple or new. Stop pretending it is. Eg. Index of mathematics articles in mainspace since 2002.

Points for discussion

 * "You guys" The various unconnected editors who so vocally oppose outlines, keep jumping from reason to reason, here are the few reasons I can summarize -
 * opposing title choices (which this thread was meant to be addressing a single aspect of. Other titles have been used before. (List of basic foo topics, Topic outline of foo, etc. background))
 * opposing namespace location (which previous threads addressed, eg Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists which you might not have read the end of), and I again answer just above.
 * opposing the whole concept (typically using a bad outline example (like chocolate) to mock the entire project)
 * opposing a single editors actions (like TTs really bad recent pagemoves, which everyone agrees were a terrible idea for multiple reasons (undiscussed, unthought-through, etc)). He was already chastised, and lost a large dose of community respect. The minor editwars from various editors all seem to have ceased. Let's move on.
 * opposing the scope - I for one agree that the scope has grown too far and fast (eg chocolate). This is a subjective disagreement - eventualism vs immediatism. I'm usually an eventualist, but for pages so prominently labeled as our "Content system", I favour a more immediatist quality approach. TT and many other editors disagree, to varying degrees. This is a disagreement that could benefit from intelligent discussion.
 * End of primary points for discussion
 * We've pointed out the good examples of outlines numerous times. They're linked in the introductory paragraphs of this projectpage. Outline of anarchism, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of cell biology, Outline of forestry, and Outline of Japan. etc
 * Many of the posts (by quite a few editors) start off by insulting either Transhumanist or the entire WikiProject. Please try not to - it doesn't help anyone or anything.
 * There are lots of good points for discussion, and a few I haven't recalled.
 * Most of us can agree that there is a point to this wikiproject and the pages it is trying to support the development of (wherever they may end up, and whatever they end up being called). The occasional cry for the whole exercise to be deleted is aggressively counterproductive, and has gotten close to irrational at times. Hopefully, the dust can settle over the weekend, and we can all be productive and friendly again in some new threads, next week. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Updated 08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me start stating that I am not against outlines per se.
 * But... I agree with Dab that it is rather arrogant of the strong supporters to ridicule all critisism as "misunderstanding" of the opponents.
 * Have you considered that the strong insertionist tendency from the start of this project, combined with the rather rude way critisism is dealt with by supporters may have created anti-outline sentiments that have to do with the way this project is handled.
 * If you say such sentiments have nothing to do with the topic. I am convinced you are wrong. Handing over something you are not convinced about (like outlines) requires trust in the people running it. Trust cannot be demanded but must be deserved. In my view, many of the people running this project have done their utmost best to destroy any trust basis they had in the broader community. That this comes back to the project is perhaps sad, but not the fault of the people who do not trust the outline project to behave modestly, fairly and easy going in relation to their work. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Project: I oh so strongly agree that we need more people, and particularly more expert-people, involved. That's what I've been suggesting/reminding since this project started.
 * We struggled through the Sidebar redesign with a tiny handful of people. We struggled through the Portal:Contents redesign with a tiny handful of people. We struggled through the Community portal/Redesign and the Help:Contents menu redesign (Help talk:Contents/Draft) with a handful of people. Each one was started (and continued) with many requests for assistance and participation and feedback. Each time, a few people trickled in and offered criticism and/or help.
 * This isn't an Us-vs-Them situation. If you're reading this, and at all interested in outlines, you're part of "Us". "Us" being random editors who think outlines need more work, and have potential. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People: I hope my own statements aren't being taken as "ridiculing" of all criticisms as misunderstandings. Ridiculing has no place here. I started this thread in an attempt to point out the validity of the naming system to a few editors who were mocking it, eg and.
 * As for defensiveness: This project has been criticized for being too secretive, and has been criticized for being too attention-seeking with assistance requests. It's impossible to please everyone! That said, some editors (such as TT) make many mistakes. He aggravates me continuously with page moves and overenthusiasm. But, he cares passionately about helping Wikipedia develop, and works hard to improve himself and the project, so I (and other editors) try to defend him and to re-interpret his actions when he (or anyone) is maligned by others without good reason.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Failed, not enough participation for such a dramatic decision
The thread above, Wikipedia_talk:Outlines, in not conclusive that the page should be tagged failed. There are too few participants properly addressing the question with proper focus, and the conversation sprawled out of control. More particularly, the strongest focus of opposition was to renaming of "list" articles to "outlines" in the mainspace. However, this renaming is not a core feature of the proposal.

As proposer of the "failed" tag, Verbal should refrain from deciding consensus and altering the tag himself. Therefore, this edit was inappropriate.

My position is that there are editors in conflict with various strong feelings, but that things are not irreconcilable. Outlines can exist without (1) the eradication of "List of" articles, and even without existing in mainspace proper. The debate is therefore not concluded. I am going to revert again, to tag again as as proposal under discussion. The promotion, or rejection, of a proposal is a significant and decisive step, and should not be done under controversy by an involved editor.

There are a number of people who have invested significant work into outlines. I don't believe that it should be rejected on the opinion of just a few people. I think it is clear that wider attention, via a RFC, is required to resolve this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the above. Tagging an active, open discussion in such a manner is frankly ridiculous. What the hell is going on here? --mikaultalk 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed by TT, the leader of this group. Start an RfC on whether this should be policy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There WILL be an RFC imminently. I am compiling more evidence of the actions of TT to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that he has acted without attempting to gain consensus on pages that were lists and which he renamed as outlines. The evidence will be compelling and overwhelming. TT MUST change his attitude forthwith lest the community issue a very long block. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... if your idea of an RfC is to dish the dirt on an individual editor, allow me to count myself out. Might I respectfully suggest that you take some time out to gain some perspective before embarking on that course of action? --mikaultalk 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFC needs to be about WP:OUTLINES, specifically, should outlines, continue, where, how do they fit in with lists, categories and other things, should lists be moves to outlines and/or vice versa. We need TT to be constructively involved in discussion, not being defensive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that I do not intend to move any more lists to outlines, well, not without seeking consensus first. The Transhumanist  22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TT should also stop accusing others of libel and withdraw those remarks per WP:NLT. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's everyone stop attempting to score points, demanding withdrawals, apologies, whatever. A forensic study of how we got here won't benefit anything.  Let's "move forward" instead.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The move wars has stopped, let's not point anymore fingers and demands. -- penubag  (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I'm new to all of this so I've been busy reading, a lot I must say. My first question is this, has this project got accepted? The reason this is my first question is because a group of us tried to start WP:REHAB and it got derailed because the editor who tried to set it up didn't know to ask first prior to setting it up. Now it is pretty much dead as far as I know. I looked to see if it was, saw that it was questioned but the conversations didn't say it was or wasn't. You can see the conversation that happened.  I didn't see anything that said it was an approved project. Anyone know? If it hasn't been, then this needs to be addressed from what I learnt from the other project. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the rehab project would be subject to closer scrutiny and require more than normal consensus as sought to address editor behaviour. I don't know if a project set up to cover article content would need such approval Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems nothing about this project is valid... <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Relevant edit: . This is how the project got into WP:WikiProject Council/Directory under its current name. Under a different name it was first added with this edit: . Hans Adler 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProjects don't need approval, if they are a good idea, don't violate policy, don't disrupt, and no one objects. Outlining has been objected to.  WP:REHAB is not derailed, but is dormant.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Projects are unofficial actions started by likeminded individuals who often share a POV. They do not need permission to start. That has been settled and the wording is pretty clear on that. As long as projects do not create disruption or violate policies, they are allowed to exist without interference by those who may not agree with their POV. We have many projects whose POV are at crosspurposes with each other and they coexist just fine. It is only when policies are violated that something needs to be done. If a project starts doing controversial things by violating our normal consensus process, something must be done. Either the individuals involved or the project may get into trouble. The project must not disrupt Wikipedia, no matter how noble they think their actions might be, or how much they think their actions might benefit Wikipedia. They are not the only editors, and projects are not above policies. Policy rules. A project has no more rights than that of any individual editor, much the same as an editor has just as many rights as an admin, at least when it comes to ordinary editing. The only way for a project to make sweeping changes without seeking consensus in each case is by seeking and getting a consensus driven policy change that approves of their idea. Then it applies to all of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians are obligated to abide by that policy change. This particular one (outlines) relates to MoS and that would be the proper venue to seek such changes. An RfC there should be announced widely. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline of logic and List of logic topics
What is going on with the Outline of logic? I had expanded it as an outline, and now it is being moved to a list (and the list was deleted). Do we have groups of people working at cross purposes here or what?Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion. No content was deleted. The outline was reverted to "list of" naming, per the original designation. Some of these articles did (and do) redirect to the still extant Index of logic articles. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE List of logic topics has been renamed to an outline following admin shopping and canvassing by The Transhumanist. His arguments on the talkpage include much that is untruthful. I feel this page should be moved back to list for three reasons. One, it was originally a list, 2 it is a better name, supported by policy consensus and the mathematics wikiproject, and 3, No moves of list articles to outlines should take place until this project has gained some kind of legitimacy. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)