Wikipedia talk:Outlines/Archive 3

Moratorium on further pages moves
Reason for bringing this: The Transhumanist has again restated his campaign. One example is List of string theory topics, which was renamed recently to Outline. The Transhumanist has also been WP:CANVASSING votes and started a confusing rename debate where an oppose would apparently result in the article being renamed to outline (despite the page currently being a list, so an oppose should result in no change). His arguments are misleading and refer to this page and his project as if they have consensus.

Proposal: Until this issue has been resolved centrally, no further moves from "list of" to "outline of" should take place. This includes the starting of local rename proposals. The central issue should be addressed first. Verbal chat  07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * TT is now attempting to use voting rather than consensus to get lists renamed to outlines. This is against Wikipedia policy. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are alluding to this robotics topics discussion It wasn't a vote until you added you view in vote form bhtp! TT expressed one opinion, Verbal another - discussion could have followed but you added a vote yourself, shortly followed by cries of voting by Hipocrite. Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the transhumanist had clearly intended it to be a vote, and the (intentionally?) unclear wording and apparently contradictory nature of his vote is just adding to the confusion and not solving this problem. Verbal chat  12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I added my "vote". With TT acting in the way that he is, I must act accordingly, else he will get his own way by default. Adding my "vote" does not mean that I agree that a vote is correct, when in fact I do not. TT is clearly acting against what he has stated on his own page, which is that he intends to concentrate on the creation of new pages, in order to avoid further conflict on this issue. TT has now clearly shown that he intends to do nothing of the sort, and inteds to force the change of page names by whatever means that he cant justify. I now have exactly what I need to complete my RFC, clear and incontrovertible evidence that he is acting in a deliberate, provocative and disruptive manner. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be an RFCU and, although closely linked, would not address the main issue. However, removing TTs disruptive influence and behaviour, which should have happened long ago, would go a long way towards improving the situation. Verbal chat

Discussing issues
Ok, we seem to have come to an agreement not to move/rename pages at the moment so here is hope we can agree ( to disagree ) so let's see what we can do with the issues at hand, the previous discussion I started 'Lists AND outlines' became fragmented with other issues being cross posted resulting in my head hurting, so please could we stick to that particular issue and no allegations about other editors behaviour / style. If there is another issue that you wish to discuss please start its own thread. (I have not included all the issues yet ) Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The contention cannot be settled by only asking those that are aware of this page. The problem is that the wider community has not sanctioned these edits. My contention is that all outlines should be named lists, there should be no rigid style for outlines, and outlines can exist as a subset of lists - if that is the best way of organizing the material in the article. Other problems such as copying the lead (against GFDL and WP:LEAD) also need to be addressed, and the ownership issues of this project regarding lists and their "outlines". Verbal chat  14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, thanks, Lee, for organizing the issues and trying to remove some of the acrimony from the discussion. I agree with Verbal that there needs to be a broader consensus than just the people who read this page before major changes are made. There are many active editors who don't monitor guidelines and policy pages but might object to what to them would be major, out-of-the-blue changes to article style. I do think there should be some sort of style guidelines for outlines. If this project succeeds and users start using OOK as a way of navigating Wikipedia, then they should see a consistent look to the navigation pages until they land on a content article. But perhaps many of the details should be decided on later after the pages have been used for a bit and people have a better idea of what's good and what's not.--RDBury (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks RDB - I agree broader consensus is required before action. I am assuming that this will be through an Rfc. My intention is to see if there were any obvious areas we could agree on first, flesh out problem areas, and come up with actual questions we need the Rfc to address ... I doubt editors would enjoy entering this debate as it currently stood. Some of this discussion should probably be somewhere else or addressed in a different manner, but we're here now... Lee&there4;V  (talk  •  contribs)  00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, can you please read and reply to Talk:Outline of water! GFDL is not an issue, if it is show proof, not just talk, I have showed you that what you stated and argued was blatantly false. That you are still unsing it as an argument is not a nice way of arguing. --Stefan talk 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for Renaming / Reverting articles
Not sure about this one, should we be talking about restoring articles to their original names prior to current set of disagreements. Personally I think hold off for now leave the current proposals for other editors to contribute to if they wish, maybe editors could reword their arguments in these proposals to make them clearer, less contentious ? It will be fairly easy to find the whole group of articles if needed once we have come to a concensus.Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All lists should be reverted to "list of" until a consensus for outlines is established, and then a separate local consensus for the rename. Verbal chat  14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there have been renames from Outline to List as well. Do we have an estimate on the number of renames that were carried out? If the list is very long then I'm not sure that any action is practical unless it can done en masse. Even if a mass revert is feasible, I'm not sure that moving them again wouldn't be just as divisive as the original move. Perhaps the move should only be undone if there were objections raised on the talk page.--RDBury (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Restoring articles to original names is a crazy idea. Why add so much more work, debate and antagonism into an already burdensome, volatile debate? Consensus for or against renaming lists should clearly be based on individual cases; the more pressing general discussion is the nature and scope of structured lists, not their very existence. How about All generalisations should be completely avoided and and while we're on the subject, add all and any name changes in there too. Reverting to clearly unsuitable names such as "list of" (especially when the original lists were non-structural) is completely inappropriate and plain disruptive. If we want this to remain on topic and on task, nothing in the current set up should be changed until we have broad agreement to move ahead with. --mikaultalk 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lists AND Outlines
Until we can reach consensus outlines, I propose we use both for now. That is a list and an outline of the same subject. These could later be merged if required and any improvements in either be kept. Personally I don't quite get 'outlines' yet but my gut feeling is that they could provide a separate way from lists to navigate WikiPedia. (I don't believe content forking arguments should be applied to navigation systems). This allows editors to use there energy in creating/improving articles and reduce the heat of the debate further so we can concentrate on more level headed discussion.Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No new outlines should be created until the main issue is settled. No lists should be moved, no articles should be moved from user or project space to "outline of" names until this is settled, no lists should be duplicated and named "outlines" ever. Verbal chat  14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think content forking arguments are valid when there are competing navigation pages, e.g. Outline of geometry and List of geometry topics. Note that the second article is already more or less in outline format. On the other hand, going in and restructuring/renaming an existing article is contentious. I would propose 1) No new "Outline of X" be created unless there is no corresponding "List of X topics" (or similar). 2) When there is an existing "List of X topics", put a note in the talk page and the corresponding project page to the effect that the article is being considered for inclusion in the Outline of Knowledge project, summarize what kind of changes that might entail (e.g. inclusion in Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge), and invite discussion. Once some kind of consensus is reached then the article could be absorbed into OOK (or not, if that's the way the discussion goes).
 * I noticed that Why do we have outlines in addition to...? does not mention Lists which, imo, is what it most needs to include, but it looks like what to include is what we're trying to decide here. To me, List of Presidents of the United States is a list since it has no structure other than chronological order. On the other hand, List of geometry topics is hierarchical and would be appropriate to include in an overall hierarchy of general knowledge. So whether it's called a list or not it has a different structure and type than the List of Presidents. Plus, there can arguments made that some of the entries in the geometry list could go under multiple headings and that's not true for the list of presidents (ignoring Cleveland). So I think there are really two distinct types of articles the the name "Outline of..." for the second type might not be optimal.--RDBury (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lee - concerning outlines and lists, live and let live. I believe banning new outlines would be highly disruptive (and unfair to outline editors), and would require a wider venue of discussion than this backwater page.  The Transhumanist  02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Live and let live. content forking arguments don't apply to navigation systems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of this, but can see no point in creating new outlines while the whole concept is the subject of a review. Especially given the strength of opinion involved. Nothing is so important that it needs to be created or changed before that review is completed. --mikaultalk 07:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are Outlines Lists?
They are obviously some form of structured list, but I am unsure of the problem with this, if they are lists they could be added to the various types of list that exist already, if not they stay separate. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines are misnamed lists, with an arbitrary set of rules that conflict other wikipedia policies and guidelines thrust upon them, that are WP:OWNed by a few editors active at this wikiproject, whereas lists are open to the community. Verbal chat  14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Why can not outlines (no matter what they are named) be different from what lists are today. Wikipedia evolves all the time, do not just be negative, try to see how the problem that you have can be adressed.
 * Outlines evolved for a long time, but more effort was put into trying to make them better than to update the policies to match the lists, then when this isses started, various attempts to update the polices where made, but they where obviously reverted. Please take this opportunity to explain what you want, not just say NO, and lets see if we can get consensus. I give you an example, is 147 (number) a list or not? Does it follow WP:LEDE? does it follow WP:MOS? If there is a issue, should we jump in and rename all X (number) pages to be list of things related to number X or should we adjust the polices? I think we should adjust the polices to work for both lists, 'outline' and number type articles. --Stefan talk 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no limit on what lists can be, the guideline is intentionally vague, which is partly why we don't need extra guidelines etc to deal with outlines, and outlines are subsets of lists anyway. Outline naming and layout should be decided on a case by case basis, and renames shouldn't occur without discussion first. It is the outline project which is forcing a limited definition upon us. I would oppose renaming number articles to outlines, and other than that your example is spurious. Verbal chat  05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlines patently are lists, but that's barely relevant; the fact is they're distinct from alphabetical lists and offer an entirely different overview. If they were exactly the same thing we wouldn't need a separate set of guidelines. They're not, so we do. Like Lee, I really don't see any logical issue here. --mikaultalk 07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Outlines are not lists.  Outlines are more than lists.   Perhaps a generalisation of lists, like a cube is a 3-D generalisation of a square.  Also, a list is not an outline, although lists can be found in outlines.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Name of outline articles
From the discussion I've seen this seems to be a major bone of contention. Assuming outlines are valid, if we do have them how ought they be named? To make it simpler let's also assume they are separate from lists and not replacing them for now. Currently 'Outline of...' can lead to article names which are objected to (Outline of Geometric shapes). I can see the problems with this. I can only suggest that instead of 'Outline of ...' Outline:' is used, so for example we would have 'Outline:circles' instead of 'Outline of circles', that seems to solve it (in my head at least). Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Faulty assumption. "Outline of" articles are not valid. "List of circle topics" etc would avoid all the problem issues, and can be organised as best fits the ontent. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the format, titles should be chosen carefully, and not be chosen with a rigid mindset that is set in the stone of anal obsessiveness. That an outline article "must" always use a title with the word "outline" in it results in some pretty ridiculous titles. A title should be unambiguous. Outlines can still be called "list..." when it is a better title. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but would state it slightly differently: outlines should be called "list" unless there is a compelling specific reason in that particular instance - I can't think of any though. The flexibility of lists is much more compelling. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but am leaving the door open for (a minority of) situations where "outline" might work okay in a title. We shouldn't be anal about the term "list" either.... ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the naming system is crucial to grouping or navigatiion, I see the naming controversy as a moot point and a pointless waste of time. --mikaultalk 07:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is a problem. I still favour a special name space, despite the old discussions.  Outlines don't belong in mainspace, not visibly anyway, just like the contents pages, index pages, glossary pages, etc, aren't supposed to counted towards the number of pages in a book.  The current best place would be in portal space, but I am convinced by TT about the awkwardness of that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming "controversy" is indeed a sad waste of time. If the WOOKies had any interest in getting ahead with their project, they would have moved their outlines out of main namspace long ago. They need to reside under Portal:Contents pending a possible consensus to create a new dedicated namespace. Outlines are "valid" as content summary, and therefore naturally are sub-pages of Portal:Contents. If at one point this project turns out so successful that a new dedicated namespace seems adequate, they can still be moved. --dab (𒁳) 11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines can form part of lists
Outlines should not duplicate already existing list articles. If list articles can be improved by organising the material in someway then that should be done at the list page, and not be creating a duplicate in a walled garden with a restrictive set of non-standard rules. Lists can be organised as "outlines", or have an outline section, a hybrid, or not use an outline when it is appropriate. What we should not do is forces the ridiculous naming scheme and narrow layout rules on lists or duplicates. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, and as such there are technical solutions to the problems of arranging the same data in different ways. It would be much better to investigate and develop these rather than force this projects view of how data should be presented on everyone else without consensus. Outlines are a subset of lists, and can exist on list articles alongside other organisational schemes, which shouldn't be dictated from above. WP:LIST is vague for exactly this reason. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Verbal,


 * Walled garden states:


 * "On many wikis, Wikipedia included, a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group. This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic. This should especially be avoided on Wikipedia, where one of our core principles is building the web. While orphaned articles are far easier to detect than walled gardens, if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other, then be bold and, depending on the circumstances,  add both outgoing and incoming links, or suggest a merge."


 * Your application of this term to outlines is puzzling, since most outlines link to scores if not hundreds of articles. Each outline is in fact a collection of links!  And there are prominent links to each outline from almost all of the corresponding subject articles' see also sections, each corresponding subject article's talk page, and on most of the corresponding WikiProjects' talk pages.  Thousands of notices sprinkled around Wikipedia also lead to the outlines and the outline project.  Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge is one of the most extensive networks of links on Wikipedia. It is exactly the opposite of a walled garden.


 * The Transhumanist 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using the term correctly in its English sense. Your comment addresses none of the problems. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead content forking
I was looking at Outline of Japan and found that the lead section was rather long and included such tidbits as the meaning of the Kanji characters for the Japanese name. If outline pages are to be used for navigation then this type of information is not needed and should be moved to the main article if it's not there already. Verbal has complained that some outline article have leads that where copied and pasted from the leads of the main article, a practice which has more serious issues than content forking. The current guideline does mention this issue but seeing as Outline of Japan is listed as one of the 5 model outlines is seems that this section is either not being followed very closely or is not clear enough.--RDBury (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?
This is a straw poll to see if there is support for or opposition in the wider community to renaming outlines to lists.

Should outlines be renamed to lists?


 * No. I oppose renaming them - Most outlines have stabilized under their current names for over a year. Moving them would be disruptive.  Also, "List" is more ambiguous, and a collection of outlines filled with articles that are titled "List of" would be confusing. Outline titles that are puns, can be fixed by adding "topics" to the end of them, such as Outline of drawing topics. The Transhumanist  04:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a case by case decision, members of this project should propose the changes, ideally publishing them on working groups etc. before making the moves without a mandate. Without that I am not surprised that some have been reversed when discovered.-- Snowded  TALK  04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to renaming Lists to Outlines, I agree. The Transhumanist  04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "List" is far less ambiguous than "outline" in the context of titles. What is your mother tongue? You haven't answered my question yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The term outline is common-practice in this usage. It also serves as an identity to pages that appear in this manner, since others will be accustomed to ours when they see it. -- penubag  (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. If a list is an outline that is part of the hierarchical outline of knowledge navigation scheme, then this should be reflected in its title and to distinguish them from the other types of lists that exist on Wikipedia. Cacycle (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. No bulk renames should be done, and renames in either direction should only be done with a talk page consensus, disregarding "driveby" comments from this project or other projects unrelated to the subject of the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This includes disregarding the driveby renames done by members of this project who would never consider editing the article, as well. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably most of the time, but if they have been started from scratch with an "outline"-type title, they should probably remain so, unless a local consensus votes to change the title. Some can indeed be fixed as proposed above by the addition of a word or words, which may be required to solve the ambiguity inherent in the word "outline". This is a situation where you, TT, if you are the one who created the article or the title, need to avoid exerting your infamous ownership editing tactics. BTW, repeatedly starting these polls or RfC-type things is in principle like forum shopping. Stop doing it. Repeating the same thing until you get your way is improper. It's a blatant form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's very disruptive and you are thus adding to the evidence that will be used against you. You have potential to become a good editor, but you are expendable, since you are often more trouble than you are worth. You're a huge timewaster here and it needs to stop. How about taking a pause from your project work before you are forced to do so by a topic ban? I think it might be good for you to do ordinary editing for awhile. Even if you took a month long pause, we'd probably not be finished putting out all the fires you have started and fixing all the damage you have done. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a case-by-case process. Rename the least offensive ones that are more or less regular, delete those that duplicate existing portal presentations or those that are just ignorant collections of glaciers of Senegal; the rest may be kept waiting for a summary execution. Outlines, in my opinion, may be justified in areas that are neither covered by portals, nor can be effectively listified because of irregular structure of the subject and its existing coverage by wikipedia (i.e. Anatomy is more or less regular, Philosophy is not). NVO (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All that had no discussion before the move should be reverted to list, and the remit of this project should be decided by centralised discussion. Individual renames should take place after discussion at the article and notification at relevant wikiprojects, including this one. All articles that were originally "list" should be restored. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * per verbal. Khu  kri  05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Case by case per NVO. -- Klein zach  06:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, don't rename outlines to lists. These outlines make up an easy-to-navigate outline of knowledge. Encyclopedia Britannica has their own outline of knowledge (ook) for a good reason, and following their footsteps is not a bad idea. There are also many benefits to outlines, please read this short paragraph. The articles in question should be renamed to "Outline of x" to match an outline of knowledge so as to provide easy access to these articles. Keeping these articles in "List" disrupts the Wikipedia's outline of knowledge and the many, many, benefits inherited from outlines and outline format. -- penubag  (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, renaming should only be considered where consensus dictates a change, ie on an individual basis. How/why/whether they should have been renamed in the past is also only relevant to individual cases, if at all. --mikaultalk 07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * obviously a case-by-case question. The title must match the page content. Rename it if it is an encyclopedic list, move it out of namespace if it is an "outline". --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all the question The question is not about a mass renaming, it's about the entire concept of these outlines. While the consensus here is obviously "no," the consensus of this section clearly does not justify a massive renaming of anything to anything else, nor does it protect "outline of" from a real discussion regarding future status. Why is the real question being dodged? Hipocrite (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI'm sorry but after watching what has been going on, I too question using outlines at all. There appears to be problems all over this project.  If decided now to discontinue the outline project it's going to require a huge cleanup by editors, this is not fair to anyone that has to take the time to clean up.  If there going to be an RFCU on this?  If so, would someone supply the dif please?  I was on the fence about this but researching it has made me come down against the use of outlines, sorry to those who really want them.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a waste of time. There have already been several discussions on the naming issue (1, 2), these produced a lot of argument but no consensus. Another discussion, especially a non-binding straw poll will only produce more of the same. There are deeper issues involved (see the Discussing issues thread above) and the naming issue can't be decided until some of these can be resolved.--RDBury (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As I wrote above, TT's repeatedly starting these polls or RfC-type things is in principle like forum shopping. He should stop doing it. Repeating the same thing until he gets his way is improper. It's a blatant form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is very disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Different view I perhaps differ from everybody else, and do not think it is a local page by page discussion. Navigational devices are one of the most important things that should be uniform throughout the project. Not doing so is as if each page decided if sections or numbered paragraphs should be used. should be a clear distinction between what is a List of and what is an Outline of, and it should apply universally. And once we have is a consistent distinction, existing lists or outlines that do not fit that distinction should be moved. Personally, I think it very important to have both in most cases, but that should be a subject area decision,  but one that recognizes that  special topics might have a good reason for preferring one or the other.
 * whether we actually should try to maintain all the separate organization projects is a more difficult question. Most people prefer the ones they use. Myself, I use lists, preferably sortable lists, except for some kinds of cleanup where I use categories. I like the idea of  classification by LC or Dewy subjects numbers, but I never use them. Everyone else will think differently. If there are enough people, then the solution is rather obvious--do whatever a sufficient group of people in the general area are able to maintain, possibly keeping the less well maintain ones in some deprecated status for future development.    DGG ( talk ) 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No I oppose renaming them.   Burningview    ✉  15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Refuse to take part in this poll as that would be read as support for the whole "outline" business. The real question is not how to name them. The real questions are whether we want them, in which form, under what quality standards, and what would be an acceptable rate for their creation. Hans Adler 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of the general concept of outlines and think that more navigational devices are good for the encyclopedia. The problem is that the community needs to decide for itself what outlines are before it can decide how they should be treated. I think we should develop a well-supported style guideline such as WP:LIST which prescribes the exact place of outlines within the encyclopedia: when they should be used, what their format should be like, what, if any, limits on the detail of content are needed, etc.  Before we have that settled RfC's like this are rather pointless.  If the proposed style guideline is rejected, than in my view the whole concept of outlines would be rejected, but until that happens (and I hope it doesn't) I see no point in arguing over specific namings or the function of outlines. Let the proposed guideline continue to evolve for now, I've seen no concerning reasons why we shouldn't allow a new type of navigational device to develop.  Them  From  Space  20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't care, and I really wish this dispute would stop spilling over into the rest of Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm Why are you having a straw poll before you have the discussion? Isn't the question really should we stop renaming lists as outlines or move warring over the name? Is this this the right venue to hold this discussion and when are we going to have an RFC on the whole OOK project? Finally, how fair is it to establish a local consensus on a wikiproject and then invite the wider community to comment some days later? That's not consensus building.´ Just to be clear to everyone here, the next time someone moves a list to an outline or and outline to a list without a clear consensus for the move then they´are going to get blocked. Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a badly thought out strawpoll. As the main culprit/disputant, Transhumanist should not have started it, should not have started it here, and should have included at least a hint of the history of the issue: the original set of pages was all called "X basic topics" from 2001 until 2005 (and in 2005, were renamed to "List of basic X topics", and then more names were tried).

Hence I'm closing the strawpoll. We did at least get some useful feedback out of it.

If anyone would like to confront the difficult aspects of these issues, rather than just commenting in a poll, please read through the TWO (2) items linked in the introduction to the RfC that is being calmly built at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. Then, give your thoughts there. Thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Further disruption by
The Transhumanist has continued to move "Lists" to "Outlines" despite his agreement to stop and without resolving the dispute here. In fact, List of drawing topics was moved twice by him which means that the move cannot simply be reverted and is intentionally disruptive. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An ANI report may be your only route -- Snowded TALK  05:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for the opinion of two involved admins and one uninvolved. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stumbled here after finding a CSD on list of drawing topics, I've reverted this move as there is no concensus for it. Having looked at the wiki lawyering going on round here, with respect to concensus not required I suggest this is taken to a centralised discussion prior to anymore of these moves being carried out. I saw the one brief discussion on ANI, but would suggest Verbal as main protagonist knowing all the arguments starts the discussion. Khu  kri  06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "starts the discussion"? What are you talking about? If you bother to look at this page, you will see that this discussion has been ongoing since July. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He has started discussion today on 23 different outline articles, that is if I counted correctly. Are we supposed to bounce around to all of these?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After clicking a half a dozen of the difs, he has linked to this page for comment informing that the name could be changed. Click on his contributions if you want to reply I guess. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I had a look but I didn't see the discussion here since July featured on centralised discussions as I suggested i.e. cent WP:CENT, if you could point it to me that would be appreciated. So I am sorry I haven't bothered to look at this page, as I seem to have missed it. But now looking through it I see am seeing two or three vociferous champions of this renaming campaign, and nothing at all that says to me that concensus has been sought or achieved, hence the reason I suggested that this is done, quickly, before anyone goes any further. Regards Khu  kri  15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and expert input

 * This is a side effect of WP:CFORK issues between the subject article and the outline article. The root cause of which is people trying to create outlines about subjects in which they are not experts. There has already been a mention about this with Outline of chocolate. Basically, an outline needs to be done from scratch by experts in the field, not by taking the main article and stripping out everything but the section headings and links.--RDBury (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I quote
 * an outline needs to be done from scratch by experts in the field.
 * This is quite contrary to the fundamental idea that Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. It also demonstrates the WP:OWN mentality of the people involved in the project. So Outlines yet again show that they are not in keeping with the basic principles of WP. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, an outline, to be useful, must be done by experts in the field. There may be some exceptions, perhaps including outlines of real countries) where a standard format related to the subject may be useful.  (However, that purpose may be better served by a template.)  This suggests, again, that outlines should not be in article-space.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I forgot. Something like "an encyclopedia that every half-awake moron can edit while also having dinner and watching TV, in the certainty of being immune from criticism in case the outside world is not entirely in line with what they wrote" is part of the self-description of Wikipedia, if not its most fundamental principle. The only problem I have with this is: I don't remember where exactly this principle has been written down. I looked at WP:FIVE but couldn't find it from there. Can you help me, please? Hans Adler 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Are you telling me that you have you never read the Statement of Principles by Jimbo? Try reading No.3User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you take this off-topic discussion elsewhere please, and leave this section for discussing if there is a GFDL problem with these introductions, and if so how to fix it efficiently. Knepflerle (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I serious? No and yes. I was sarcastic, but I think you have spotted that.
 * I am obviously not telling you that I have never read that statement. As a matter of fact, I don't know if I have read this particular statement. Wikipedia isn't just Jimbo; by now there are a few people here whose opinions about the project matter more than his, and in fact I have seen him do a few pretty inappropriate things that proved he is quite out of touch with the project. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with these principles, or that they aren't important. I am very familiar with them, even though I don't remember whether it is from this particular statement of Jimbo's, or another source, or whether I just learned them by immersing myself into WP.
 * Please notice what No. 3 does not say: That uninformed edits by well-intentioned editors are sacred. Of course they can be removed. The most important principle, so fundamental that Jimbo took it for granted and it only accidentally appears hidden in No. 6 – don't forget that Wikipedia grew out of another project to create an encyclopedia and defined itself with relation to that – is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And it turns out that No. 3 is no longer even literally true: Many of our most high-profile articles are protected nowadays, because not doing harm to BLP subjects and the overall quality of the encyclopedia are actually more important than the "sacred" principle for drawing readers in to turn them into writers. It follows from No. 3 that we are not going to protect articles to prevent random readers from changing lists into outlines, or vice versa, or from creating content forks. But of course we can still decide, as a group, that it's wrong, and undo their actions. And we routinely apply sanctions against editors who fight against a consensus, as opposed to acting out of excusable ignorance with our way doing things. No. 3 is about attracting collaborators; it's not about setting up an artificial rule that ensures that any idiot can degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Hans Adler 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While much of Hans Adlers comment maybe true, this does not take away the justified worry that has been driving this topic. There is concern that the Outline project takes ownership of lists and outlines on all pages in Wikipedia; claiming that expert view is needed to fill these. By taking up such ownership claim this project self-appoints them as experts. That makes it the responsibility of the project to maintain all outlines at an expert level (i.e. comparable to at least Good standards). Needless to say they cannot live up to this (but in communication have not hesitated to shift responsibility for maintaining quality to others, while they demand of these others to follow their project guidelines).
 * Much of this comes down to the basic problem many editors have with some of the driving people in this project: pushing ideas onto many, many articles without consensus and not being prepared to listen. Arnoutf (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that we have a problem with too much expert input into outlines. I thought the main problem was mindless duplications. I don't expect that the outline project will be very attractive to experts. Hans Adler 19:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As this thread has been hijacked and and the original problem drowned in general off-topic pontification despite my polite request, I'm separating off my initial post and retitling this section. Knepflerle (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view, although an outline should be done from scratch, since there is no point in simply duplicating the organisation of an article, and general articles in Wikipedia are apt to become quite unbalanced,  an outline  does not need to be done by an expert, but by people who  broadly understand the overall subject, though ideally people with as broad and deep a grasp as possible. The people working on it need to know not only the subject, but the general  Wikipedia practices with outlines and other navigational aids, and the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant Wikipedia articles, and their likely development. It's a navigational guide to the actual encyclopedia, not an abstract of the subject. Any good and experienced editors should be able  to make an outline for any subject they can understand, perhaps not as well as an broad expert with wide mastery, but probably better than a narrow expert specialist in one aspect.  This might perhaps be an area of Wikipedia that especially does not need an expert, but rather an intelligent generalist--and not a single person--an outline is as amenable to cooperative heading as much as any article.  (& if it does need any expertise, it's in making outlines, not in making the subject--just like an index, this is a different skill than writing.)   That it needs a subject  expert is wrong, not just on whom is actually needed, but also on the basis of fundamental Wikipedia policy. Any statement here to the contrary is opposed to basic policy and must be withdrawn. (For one thing, just as with articles, we have no way of knowing who is and is not an expert in a subject, except by the quality of their edits here--and that will be judged by the users). The language needs to   be revised.   Seeing the conflicts above, I'm not about to make a bold edit without explicit support here, but normally  I would simply delete or change that sentence. Arthur, much as I respect your, your view above is not appropriate to any aspect of  this encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that we actually disagree. I think we are merely afraid of opposite extremes. I was using "expert" in the loose sense in which it is often used here at Wikipedia. Basically it means someone who is prepared and able to read and understand the relevant articles and then is comfortable enough with the matter to become creative. What worries me is the practice of simply copying the structure of an article and its lead. If the only editor who is interested in creating an outline for Widget is one who can't be bothered to use their brain a bit more than that, then the odds are that the Outline of widgets is going to be an outdated content fork of this (highly controversial, for the sake of the argument) subject until someone who wasn't able to push through their minority POV on Widget discovers and restructures it. So basically the problem is the fast creation of "outlines" by people who seem to be mainly interested in this navigational tool, while among the people who are actually interested in various specific subjects there isn't much support for them. And this predictable quality problem is why they need to be in a different namespace.
 * And sorry for hijacking this thread. FWIW, I wrote one of my comments above at the same time as the polite request to give the thread back, and didn't get an edit conflict. Hans Adler 08:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My 0.02
All right, the discussion on this page is very unorganized and confusing (which is why we need LiquidThreads... but that's not the point), and, that's kind of ridiculous. My thoughts on all of this are, as follows: I believe outlines are a good thing, but they need an overhaul.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some say WP:CFORK, I say WP:IAR
 * Its own namespace would be a rather odd change, but, it makes a bit of sense.
 * Not all lists are outlines, and, in fact, most outlines are not lists
 * If outlines aren't put in their own namespace, they should have a uniform name format
 * Outlines should be put together by experts, so that all major aspects are covered in the outline, or by a template for like, states and countries


 * If outlines are specialist, then they do not belong. Principle No.3 by Jimbo reads as follows - "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.


 * Outlines are clearly WP:OWN and in breach of the above principle as set by Jimmy Wales. Nuff said. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to edit an Outline article? mikaultalk 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not saying that nobody else should edit any outlines, I'm really not. I just think that if an expert at least gave us an idea of what the major aspects of a topic are, that would make the outline much more useful than if somebody who has no knowledge on the topic put the outline together.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Expert input isn't a problem, the entire encyclopedia has been built this way; one of the beautiful things about it is the way experts (eventually) appear wherever there is inaccuracy and put it right, using RS of course. It's the appeal for experts to create outlines that's wrong here, just as claims of ownership are based on an erroneous assumption that some special dispensation is required to make changes or get involved. mikaultalk 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's say you are encouraged to add real content, not "outlines" of nonexistent content. Wikipedia has no entry on Humor in Mongolia; perhaps, in the absence of the editor who "outlined" it you may provide some insights into the subject? NVO (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, ridiculing blocked users is bad taste - "forgive me, Your Majesty, I'm a vulgar man but my music is not" -Transhumanist even laid out a "to-do list" at User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country/Humor in x. Should we rename it "Outline of nonexistent humour?". NVO (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. That to-do list is really quite informative; while we all know there is no humor in the United States, it seems there is humor in Russia. Who'd a thunk it? mikaultalk 05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a giant leap ahead of Glaciers of Senegal, Fjords of Slovakia and Roads in Russia. They would fit nicely in Outline of vacuum though ... Seriously: the amount of ludicrous red links discredits the whole affair worse than GFDL violations or content fork hazard. To me it's an indication that you don't care (not you alone - the whole OOK team). This nonsense exists for years. Why? NVO (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, I only got here the other day... although I've spent an ice age exploring the issue since. Red links suck, wherever they are. They usually point to a gap in our namespace coverage of a topic; I say "usually" because they can also point to articles we shouldn't have. I'm with you insofar as outlines – as nav aids – should cover only what we do have, not what we might be missing. There are surely good intentions there but it should be left to WP:RA to advertise our shortfalls. It does, however, highlight the huge scope that navigation articles have to cover in order to be credible, a point which arms its detractors to the teeth. But this isn't just about outlines... see Universally popular navigation systems, for example. --mikaultalk 08:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that it's particularly important, but I happen to own a copy of a German magazine with an extensive article about humour in Mongolia. Unfortunately there are reasons to suppose that Titanic (magazine) is not entirely a reliable source... Hans Adler 08:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if a humor in Mongolia article were to be created, it would probably go straight to AfD or PROD.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well here's an anthropologist claiming that Mongolians have a wonderful sense of humor, for a start. Another witness rates Mongols of 1945, on a humour scale, above the Chinese. NVO (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really not the point. The point is that there are a lot of things in the current outlines that, if we purely templated countries with absolutely no manual work, unlikely results are bound to pop up.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They are bound to pop up at the first deployment of the template. But then comes a two-dollar question: why over fifty manual edits to Outline of The Gambia failed to remove not only nonexistent Mountains of the Gambia but also the incredible Glaciers of the Gambia? (For the record, Geography of The Gambia says the highest "mountain" is 53 meters above the sea level. But who reads Geography these days... ) NVO (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) But that's a good point. I'm thinking in that case, for countries and states, a subst'd template would work, removing stuff that will never/should never have an article later.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is how the country outlines were created. (I'm not sure about state outlines, but I assume they used a similar format). The step of removing links that will never happen hasn't been undertaken yet. --Danger (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A subst template, right. Clearly nothing broken here, it just hasn't been built yet. mikaultalk 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)