Talk:Lists of basic topics

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.

Talk:Lists of basic topics/archive 1

Talk:Lists of basic topics/archive 2

Contents

[edit] Summary of what has been done so far

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

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

Other basic level lists have been added to the page even though they don't follow the same format as the basic lists. Examples include the "by country" entries, and "unsolved problems".

[edit] Task list

[edit] Lead section

Many of the lists start with Basic topics of ______ include: This is the standard ending for the lead paragraph. The rest of the lead paragraph still needs to be provided for most of the basic lists, and should include a brief definition of the subject in the title of the list. Two sentences usually suffice: these are lists, so the lead section should be kept as brief as is practical while still defining the title subject. The lead paragraph can be written from scratch, cut and pasted from the subject's main article's lead section (trimmed down to 2 sentences) or from other sources on Wikipedia, or a combination of these. Here is a list of the lists which need a lead paragraph:

Once a definition for the title subject is included in the lead section for a list, please remove that page from this list:

Culture – Entertainment – Game – Sports – Performing arts – Dance – Opera – Theatre – Visual arts – Design – Painting – Photography – Sculpture – By country – Lakes – Mountains – Rivers – Countries  – Counties – Economies – Geographies – Histories – Politics by country – Subnational entities – Transport by country – Archaeology – Arithmetic – Algebra – Calculus – Discrete mathematics – Geometry – Trigonometry – Logic – Statistics – Unsolved problems in mathematics – People – By name – By belief – By nationality – By occupation – By office held – By prize won  – Biology – Psychology – Relationships – Ethics – Epistemology – Logic – Metaphysics – Philosophical isms – Thinking – (Unsolved problems in philosophy) – Astronomy – Biochemistry – Biology  (Unsolved problems in biology, Unsolved problems in neuroscience) – Chemistry  (Unsolved problems in chemistry) – Ecology – Earth sciences – Geology – Meteorology – Oceanography – Physics  (Unsolved problems in physics) – Religion – Religions – Major social sciences – Archaeology – Business – Cognitive science  (Unsolved problems in cognitive science) – Community – Economics  (By country, Unsolved problems in economics) – Education – Law – Linguistics  (Unsolved problems in linguistics) – Marketing – Parapsychology – Politics (By country) – Psychology – Public affairs – Relationships – Sociology – Aerospace science – Artificial intelligence – Agricultural science – Cartography – Computer programming  (Unsolved problems in software engineering) – Computer science  (Unsolved problems in computer science) – Engineering – Health science  (Unsolved problems in medicine) – Library and information science – Military science

[edit] Original body stranded at the end of the page

When the heading skeleton was installed on the lists, all the original content was shoved to the bottom of the page. The content consisted of links -- some with subheadings, some without. A few of the lists still have this material at the bottom of the page, and it needs to be placed in the skeleton. A few of the subheadings are redundant and can be tossed, but the rest can be retained and integrated into the skeleton. Some headings are better than the corresponding one in the skeleton and can take its place ("branches", for instance is often replaced by "types", which may fit better for a particular subject, and so on).

Once the stranded body at the bottom of a list has been placed, please remove that page from this list:

Biology – Business – Community – Politics – Public affairs –

[edit] List formatting

Most of the lists are presented in single-column, and this makes the pages long. These should be converted to a multi-column format, as has been done in List of basic geography topics, or as dash-seperated lists, as has been done for some of the lists, or a combination of both, or some other scheme that looks good and is easy to use (see basic concepts section of List of basic painting topics). Here is a list of the pages which need to be converted from single-column format:

Once a list has been nicely formatted, please remove that page from this list:

Culture – Classics – Cooking – Critical theory – Hobbies – Literature – Art, The Arts, and Entertainment – Game – Poetry – Sports – Performing arts – Dance – Film – Music – Opera – Theatre – Visual arts – Architecture – Crafts – Design – Drawing – Film – Painting – Photography – Sculpture – Geography  – Lakes – Mountains – Rivers – Countries  – Counties – Subnational entities – History – Archaeology – Mathematics – Arithmetic – Algebra – Calculus – Discrete mathematics – Geometry – Trigonometry – Logic – Statistics – People – By name – By belief – By nationality – By occupation – By office held – By prize won  – Self – Biology – Psychology – Relationships – Philosophy – Ethics – Epistemology – Humanism – Logic – Metaphysics – Philosophical isms – Thinking – Transhumanism – (Unsolved problems in philosophy) – Physical science – Astronomy – Biochemistry – Biology  Chemistry  Ecology – Earth sciences – Geology – Meteorology – Oceanography – Physics  Major social sciences – Archaeology – Business – Cognitive science  Community – Critical theory – Economics  Education – Finance – Law – Linguistics  Management – Marketing – Parapsychology – Politics (By country) – Psychology – Public affairs – Relationships – Sociology – Technology and technologies – Aerospace science – Artificial intelligence – Agricultural science – Architecture – Cartography – Communication – Computer programming  Computer science  Energy development – Engineering – Health science  Industry – Library and information science – Manufacturing – Military science – Transport

[edit] Incomplete

Many of the lists are incomplete; the bright blue ones are particularly sparse and need the most work. Each list should provide an overview of its subject, and present all the basic topics from its field. But please don't overdo it: keep in mind that these lists don't aim at being comprehensive — we have the Lists of topics for that. Each of the basic lists is a subset of its corresponding mother from that page.

Once a list has been sufficiently filled-in or fleshed out, please remove that page from this list:

Culture – Classics – Cooking – Critical theory – Hobbies – Literature – Art, The Arts, and Entertainment – Game – Poetry – Sports – Performing arts – Dance – Film – Music – Opera – Theatre – Visual arts – Architecture – Crafts – Design – Drawing – Film – Painting – Photography – Sculpture – Geography  – By country – Lakes – Mountains – Rivers – Countries  – Counties – Subnational entities – Archaeology – Mathematics – Arithmetic – Algebra – Calculus – Discrete mathematics – Geometry – Trigonometry – Logic – Statistics – Unsolved problems in mathematics – People – By name – By belief – By nationality – By occupation – By office held – By prize won  – Self – Biology – Psychology – Relationships – Philosophy – Ethics – Epistemology – Humanism – Logic – Metaphysics – Philosophical isms – Thinking – Transhumanism – (Unsolved problems in philosophy) – Physical science – Astronomy – Biochemistry – Biology  (Unsolved problems in biology, Unsolved problems in neuroscience) – Chemistry  (Unsolved problems in chemistry) – Ecology – Earth sciences – Geology – Meteorology – Oceanography – Physics  (Unsolved problems in physics) – Religion – Religions – Major social sciences – Archaeology – Business – Cognitive science  (Unsolved problems in cognitive science) – Community – Critical theory – Economics  Unsolved problems in economics – Education – Finance – Law – Linguistics  (Unsolved problems in linguistics) – Management – Marketing – Parapsychology – Politics Psychology – Public affairs – Relationships – Sociology – Technology and technologies – Aerospace science – Artificial intelligence – Agricultural science – Architecture – Cartography – Communication – Computer programming  (Unsolved problems in software engineering) – Computer science  (Unsolved problems in computer science) – Energy development – Engineering – Health science  (Unsolved problems in medicine) – Industry – Library and information science – Manufacturing – Military science – Transport

[edit] Missing lists

There are still gaps in this list collection. We need basic lists to fill those gaps.

See the redlinks at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lists_of_basic_topics&oldid=82640914.

Add further redlinks here.


[edit] Hacking the list to shreads

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

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

No, I was removing the items that are neither lists, nor lists of basic items within a topic. There was no explanation for why category links and normal article links were mixed in, so I removed them. Seems perfectly clear. I'm reverting once. You do not own this list, please build consensus for changing this page's direction before doing so. You seem to be mixing Overviews and Basic topic lists together? See also Wikipedia talk:Contents#Duplication. --Quiddity 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree "list" pages should stick to lists. Also, just out of ignorance, can someone summarize what "basic" means here? What sets them apart from the plain ol' "Lists of topics"? What comes to mind for me would be like what you would find as the "subcategories" for a major topic in list form. Rfrisbietalk 02:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, clarification would be good on "basic". Some of these sublists are growing very large, and are not-so-basic anymore. --Quiddity 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What's with the edit warring? I've checked the links, and almost all of the ones you removed are to lists. I found one category and a couple articles with lists in them. I'll fix those links. --The Transhumanist 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One revert does not a war make. --Quiddity 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of "basic"

Let's go for a working definition. Right now, it appears to be, "Below are lists of fundamental concepts for major subject areas. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with the respective areas." I see one way to operationalize this would be to say,

  • "Lists of basic topics include only:
    • those lists named "List of basic X topics,"
    • those lists based on subcategories for major subject areas, plus...
    • (?)."

Rfrisbietalk 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Here's an example using Psychology of what I understand this pages purpose to contain is:
Timelines belong with timelines, unsolved problem lists are already at Overviews. etc. --Quiddity 03:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

[edit] Does "basic" still apply to this list collection?

Is this list collection no longer basic? If it isn't, then we need to figure out what to rename it. It's a pretty useful resource, and it would be a shame to dismantle it. No doubt it belongs somewhere in the reference system. --The Transhumanist 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That question gets back to begging the question, "What types of lists should be included at Wikipedia:Contents?" If we can answer that question, then we can sort out what types of pages we need, with working definitions of what should be included on them. This says to me we still need operational definitions, and outlines of what constitutes high-level "Contents." Rfrisbietalk 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not an ivory tower issue. I think it's pretty easy to answer. Start asking people how they make use of these lists. Find out which lists are actually being made use of, and find out what users want. --The Transhumanist 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative replies are counter-productive. I've made my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Rfrisbietalk 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Red links

What is the point of all the red links here? It's not like a project is likely to be using them to create basic topics lists. I'm going to delete them. If you revert, please explain here. Rfrisbietalk 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is explained very clearly in the IMPORTANT notice at the top of the page (in edit mode). I've been using the redlinks to create the lists, which is not that difficult when you substitute the {{BLT}} template. I'm planning to get back to them, but have been taking a little break from lists (they can drive you a little buggy after awhile, if that's all you do).  :) I'm reverting. Please chip in on the lists, rather than detract from the effort. Thanks, man.   The Transhumanist   05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's fill in the redlinks!

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

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

I forgot to mention...

...it's fun!

  The Transhumanist   05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking article quality

One way to address the article quality issue is to color code the links on the lists. Red of course means they are empty and need attention right away. Bright blue means the content of a link is sparse and also needs work. A normal link is relatively complete, and users who are here primarily to read will quickly learn to avoid bright blue and click on normal links. Serious editors on the other hand would be attracted to bright blue and would seek them out to lend Wikipedia a helping hand by bringing those pages up to par. This system is in operation on the page Lists of basic topics. I've found it invaluable for directing my efforts on those lists, as it prevents me from having to check each list manually to find the ones that need work. Jump in and lend a hand and help build those lists. Thanks. --The Transhumanist 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really like this method - it's mixing a large dose of wikiproject-style into article-space, which I don't feel is really appropriate at these top-level pages. (Though it would be appropriate on their talkpages..) --Quiddity 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we already have redlinks, which are a fundamental feature of lists, used for the purposes of tracking missing pages and gaps. When the lists are completed, all the links will be the same color. So it's a temporary situation, like the warning signs used for road construction. Do supermarkets close down during remodeling? Nope. They look a bit rough because of the ongoing construction, but the food is still available. So rather than remove the useful road signs, we should speed up the work. --The Transhumanist 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrary and undocumented color coding of links has no basis in Wikipedia article style. If these were "project" pages, then the assessment system should be used. The blue links should be removed from article space. Rfrisbietalk 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The "best" way Wikipedia tracks article quality is through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team — Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. That's what I was trying to reflect in my addition of a new section. That's the only place on this contents page Wikipedia can justifiably claim some level of quality articles. All the other links here that "in turn link to all the rest" of the 1,531,279 articles are of unproven quality. Full and frank disclosure would include all of these links on the top-level Contents page, but it also would clearly notify the reader that not all articles meet Wikipedia's established peer review quality standards. Rfrisbietalk 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point: I haven't been tracking article quality per se. I've been tracking lists that I started which I haven't completed yet. They have blank sections, etc. Whoever is working on these basic lists needs some way to easily keep track of which ones need work. Without the blue links, I found myself clicking on every link just to find the ones I hadn't finished yet - it was very time consuming and annoying. The blue links are rather inoccuous. And they are not intended to remain for long. You can help by jumping in and working on those lists. In the time we've spent debating on this talk page, we could have completed several lists each! If we were to focus on those, and not on these time-wasting discussions, we could get the bluelinked pages done in short order. --The Transhumanist 10:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Creating a personal project tracking system in article space clearly demonstrates who's missing the point. It's totally out of line and should be stopped. Rfrisbietalk 12:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree. The personal highlighting/tracking system really should be moved to the article's talkpage. --Quiddity 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. --Quiddity 19:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are backlinks okay?

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

No, they're superfluous to the lists footer navbar link. --Quiddity 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I didn't add them to all the pages.   The Transhumanist   12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Namespace?

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:List of basic topics? Surely this is not article content, and hence should be in the Wikipedia namespace? What am I missing? —Daniel (‽) 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists go in article namespace, including lists of lists. It's basically article content, in that it was too large and had to be split off. See List of mathematics lists. These aren't administrative pages, they're specifically encyclopedic, and lead to articles just like lists, but one level deeper. To have lists of lists and not lists in the Wikipedia namespace would be confusing. Hope that helps.
  The Transhumanist   12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article... it should really be in the portal: namespace, similar to Portal:Current events and so on. --W.marsh 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists aren't articles either (most of them are lists of articles), yet still they're assigned place is the article namespace. See: Wikipedia:Lists. At the village pump I proposed a new namespace for lists, but that was turned down, with the majority of opinions supporting the status quo (that is, their current placement).  The Transhumanist   10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Lists of lists are self-referential and shouldn't be articles. A list namespace might be a good idea but the portal namespace exists for pages that purely exist to organize links to articles.--W.marsh 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7ELists_of_basic_topics_0507.html"