Talk:List of overviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is organized as part of a group with the other Contents pages (category). Please direct feedback on the pages as a group to Wikipedia talk:Contents. Thank you.

Contents

[edit] Add template?

How about we add "Template:Wikipediacats-flat" here? Although those are a type of categories, they are not category pages and they do link to basic kind of information (such as time, etc.) [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 19:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. This page looks much more like Wikipedia:Browse by category now, and should be more easily maintainable because it uses templates. —AlanBarrett 16:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. +sj+

[edit] get rid of "abstraction" category, or rename

The name "abstraction" for a category (and its choice of categories) is awful. Can't we find better categories or invent a new one with a different name to put these in?? Revolver 09:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "Movements" link seems inappropriate

[edit] deleted page?

Am I just confused, or had somebody deleted this page? It links right off the Main Page, so I didn't think it should be deleted. (Gosh, I hope I didn't do it myself, by accident.) Uncle Ed 19:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture should link to cuisine

Culture should include a link to the cuisine portal. How do I go about doing that? --Rakista 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit it here: Template:WikipediaTOC Use  – to space each link from the next. -- Sitearm | Talk 08:44, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

[edit] Double Systems Theory

Why are there two links to Systems Theory (on under mathmatics, and one under the main box)? I noticed that one goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Theory, and the other to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory (a very minor difference). I'd edit it, but I'm not sure if it's that way for a reason.

I removed the extra systems theory at the bottom. It was added slightly out of place to the template above but I fixed it here. -- Sitearm | Talk 06:51, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to "Browse by article"

This browse page doesn't "overview" articles any more than the category or portal browse pages. I propose it be renamed to "Browse by article." — RDF talk 04:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it could be "browse by article" or even "browse by defining article" if you want to get technical, since almost all of these articles have a corresponding category. -- Fplay 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, "overview" or "main article" are the current terminology used in the UI. We should try to make this uniform by choosing one term and settling on it.

[edit] Shortcut name is unfortunate....

WP:BROWSE is the overviews and Wikipedia:Browse is the Categories. We need to make this less confusing. -- Fplay 23:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and repointed WP:Browse to Wikipedia:Browse . There were no references to it on "What links here". -- Fplay 08:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basic standards for overviews in this list

The things listed here should at least:

  • Be the overview for their category
  • Follow the style described in the Category FAQ (use {{catmore}}, have redirect if names are different by singular/plural). If cat has description, it should closely match that of the overview.
  • Have portal links, if they exist
  • Generally be a well-organized and balanced category (neither too few nor too many non-overview articles or sub-categories) and a well-written and accurate overview, because this browser increases the visibility of those pages. That includes an opening paragraph that describes the nature and scope of the catagory.
-- Fplay 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A different approach

I'm fairly new to this project, so I'm not going to make big changes without consulting you guys, but what do you think of something like this version of the overview page? I'm not sure how to fill up the righthand side of the bottom of the page yet, but I'm working on it. Also, I'd like the images to be on the right, but alignment is more important. If we could, we should use <div> tags to correctly align the images to the right of their categories. - ElAmericano | talk 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing

I'd like to suggest adding publishing. Most other types of mass media are included. Maurreen 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rfrisbietalk 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section headers

The colored section headers help to break up the page visually. --The Transhumanist 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom TechSpot ad

The icon that displays when an image can't be shrunk down to the size specified in an image link has been replaced by a TechSpot ad. The artic map was triggering the display of the ad, but I increased the size slightly and the ad went away. But the ad still needs to be tracked down, and the original error image restored. --The Transhumanist 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to...

List your favorite rename candidates here.

  • "List of overview articles" because that's what should be here, short and sweet. Then the navbar links can be renamed to "Overviews," as a parallel construction. Rfrisbietalk 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But most of the articles are not overview articles. This list has been completely transformed. The list itself is an overview article, while the articles listed are key topics of each major subject. Waitasec, just got a brainstorm. The articles aren't overviews, but the sections are! Just name the sections "Overview of Art and culture", "Overview of Geography", "Overview of history", etc. To fit, you'd just need to drop the "articles" from the end, which would make it List of overviews. --The Transhumanist 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_overviews_527c.html"