Wikipedia talk:Contents/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Community Portal section

What would be the value of moving some or all of this page, conceptually speaking, to a new section of the Community Portal. Of course, I assume some additional organizing and clean-up would be required first. Rfrisbietalk 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The community portal pertains to the administrative side of Wikipedia: the Wikipedia community, and specifically does not serve as a navigation aid to the encyclopedia proper. Navigation of the encyclopedia is covered in the help system. A bare-bones version of this page is included in the help system at Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia, and a link to here is included there also. --The Transhumanist 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yah, it doesnt really fit into the mandate of the CP: it's not a task or a group or news. --Quiddity 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to get a link to here added to the new sidebar design, so that this page would always be one-click away no matter where you were on wikipedia, but the idea was rejected. The portals page and categories page were accepted, and a fairly prominent link to here is presented in the footer of both those pages. --The Transhumanist 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there an "outline" of the purpose(s) of the various high-level pages somewhere? Rfrisbietalk 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just going off of the intro paragraph, for the CP. I don't know of any site-wide plan for the high-level pages; they are each a kingdom unto themselves, in essence, at present. --Quiddity 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good way to put it. Continuing that line of reasoning, there are 6 such kingdoms:

  1. Main Page, and the supporting projects that feed into it.
  2. Wikipedia:Contents, and the pages listed thereon, especially those included on the Template:Contents pages (header bar).
  3. Portal:List, and all the portals listed there.
  4. Wikipedia:Community Portal, and the major departments and directories listed there WP:CBB, etc.
  5. Help:Contents and its subpages.
  6. Category:Categories and the other top-level category pages.

One purpose shared by all of the above is to provide browsing access to the encyclopedia (Wikipedia's articles) as an alternative to guessing the names of articles in the search box. The community portal does this too, but from the perspective of editing those articles, rather than merely reading them.

There's plenty of overlap between the various "kingdoms", some examples include: the category that lists portals (Category:Portals), the list which lists categories (Wikipedia:Categorical index), the help page about browsing (Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia), and the many portals which contain topic lists (as per the portal creation instructions). Many portals also contain a redundant copy of the overview article on the portal's subject. The list system and category system almost entirely overlap, though there's little conformity between them - a categories in the cat system are often referred to differently in the list system.

The overlap seems to be healthy, in that if you forced everyone to focus on developing a single access system, they'd be at each others' throats, and there'd be an ongoing fierce battle over the design of the strucute. Having several systems provides outlets for editors with different styles, as well as several fronts for innovation. Each "kingdom" attracts its own champions, and each "kingdom" leapfrogs the others from time to time, often by copying material and adapting it for use. Multiple access systems also allow solutions in the case that when structure gets stuck in quirky pattern on one system, the other systems can steer around that problem, providing alternatives, as well as leadership by example (so that a stuck system may become unstuck). --The Transhumanist 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections or topic headings

  • Do we need or want an enforced (through identical TOCs) selection of top-topic headings? If so, how do we decide what gets included? If not, how do we decide what headings to use on each page?

Here are the Portal:Browse headings vs. the Portal:List headings.

Original
  • Arts and Culture
  • History
  • Geography
  • Philosophy and Religion
  • Science and Mathematics
  • Society and People
  • Sports and Games
  • Technology
New
  • Reference
  • Art and culture
  • Geography and places
  • History and events
  • Mathematics and abstractions
  • Natural sciences and nature
  • People and self
  • Philosophy
  • Religion and spirituality
  • Social sciences and society
  • Technology and applied sciences

I prefer the original headings/groupings for use on the portals listing page, and the same for the categorical index (see: the old wikipedia:browse design). If any of the sections get too big, they can be split apart further, but there is no current need (on those 2 pages).

The same principle goes for each of the reference pages, and I think an adaptive approach at each page would be the most appropriate: eg the "People and self" section is tiny on every page except Lists of lists. I think it should be merged back into the "Society" section. Ditto for "Religion" with "Philosophy" on most of the pages. On the other hand, on many pages it's clearly beneficial to seperate certain groups, like math from science (though again, not at the portal list).

Hopefully that clearly covers what I'm asking and suggesting. --Quiddity 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree there are too many content differences to force TOCs into a common template format. They could have a common style like the template, but the specifics should vary to have reasonable amounts of content in each section. Rfrisbietalk 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fields" has one more step to completion:

The "Fields" page is a long stringy list, and needs to be columnized. I've posted a message and some sample markup code at Talk:List of academic disciplines#This page needs columnization. --The Transhumanist 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an easier way to make simple columns. I posted a suggestion and volunteered to help.
p.s. What's the deal with the "page name issue" there? :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's related to - both List of academic disciplines and List of reference tables have suffered from editors competing to develop them in different and often incompatible directions. I'm too overwhelmed to even think about tackling grokking them anytime soon! --Quiddity 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Best articles"

Please discuss how the "quality" of articles should be addressed on this contents page. Rfrisbietalk 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Quality or the lack thereof is not a valid criteria for inclusion or exclusion from these lists. We would be putting the cart before the horse. It's the topic name, and whether or not the each warrants coverage. Page quality follows page placement. "If you build it they will come." And in this case, "they" are editors. Editors improve articles. The more editors who visit an article the better it is for that article. And on Wikipedia everyone is an editor.
We shouldn't be hiding important subjects from our editors and therefore we shouldn't be filtering the contents of these lists based on the completeness nor quality of the articles.
These lists are subject hierarchies, and in this respect they are content-based — the words on the page aren't just links, they are also terms — the included terms describe these various areas of knowledge. Leaving key words out harms the representation of what these subjects are. For example, a defintion of mathematics would be woefully incomplete without mentioning geometry, so geometry has to be included in any outline of mathematics to properly represent what mathematics is. Even if the geometry article was empty, at least the reader would know that "geometry" belongs to "mathematics".
By including the key topics in each subject area, we provide 3 important services: 1) an overview of each major area of human knowledge in terms of what subjects each area covers (apart from the articles' content), 2) a place from where users can inspect Wikipedia's coverage on a subject area, and 3) an outline of the main structure of a subject for development and maintenance purposes -- these lists help editors know which articles are most important to check for completeness. Without an outline of the structure of a subject, editors may not have a clue where to apply their efforts. These lists help greatly in this regard.
An unlisted page is an invisible page. Don't screen for quality, instead mobilize resources to bring these articles up to par. Screening for quality will result in choppy lists with unacceptable gaps in the reporting of what each subject is.
Since most articles contain some useful information, it's better for a reader to find an incomplete article than none at all, and it's crucial that editors be able to find these articles in the first place.
The criteria which apply to the entries on these lists is the relevance of each topic. They should be relevant to describing what each subject area includes, and therefore relevant for directing editors' attention to them for developing, maintaining, and watching.
The whole problem isn't one of quality, it's specifically the perception that some users have of what a user on Wikipedia is. I can't emphasize enough that on Wikipedia, a user is first and foremost an editor. We need to help everyone of them help Wikipedia. This is the fastest and most direct path to the end result we all are working towards: a complete and representative encyclopedia. --The Transhumanist 08:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with large chunks of that reasoning, but that also has to be tempered with an end user in mind. The longer a list is, the harder it is to navigate, and the more links are going to be cross-disciplinary and need to be duplicated.
At least one of these pages has to remain easily usable for non info-junkies; and I'd prefer it if many of them remained short and usable, if not all. The List of reference tables is completely unwieldy already, but your proposal encompasses anything up to a Wikipedia:Concise size.
Most importantly, we'd be duplicating the work at Wikipedia:Vital articles and by the core articles teams.
So, some balance needs to be maintained, and a point of balance decided upon. --Quiddity 09:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Duplicating efforts is generally bad for everyone. eg:
Put another way, here we can do 2 out of 3 of quality, quantity, and simplicity; but not all 3. --Quiddity 09:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was making a case for the selection criteria of relevance over quality (in light of the "it's a work-in-progress" nature of Wikipedia. I didn't mean to imply anything about the scope of the lists. The scope of each is included in the title of each respective list. "Overview" is a summary of the encyclopedia, and is not intended to be a complete index of articles -- but encyclopedias are huge, so any overview or survey is bound to be big, though far from comprehensive -- it should be kept to 2 or 3 levels, including the top-level headings. For "Basic" I've focused on the branches of each section: technology for instance includes a link for each major area of technology, and not a page for say "irons", "lamps", or "golf clubs". "Reference tables" has been perverted from its original purpose: to list tables -- there's hardly any tables on there!; we should cull every link that is not a table and remove it from the navbar (the only reason it got included was because of its comprehensiveness, not because it includes tables). "Lists of topics" is supposed to be the comprehensive system. "Contents" is a list of top-level lists, and is properly limited in size accordingly. "Portals" is intended to be a directory of all completed portals, so it will eventually grow huge. "Categories" serves to bypass the chaos of the constantly morphing category tree, by presenting a fairly static list of major subject areas -- it should have just enough links to serve as a stable alternate top-end for that system. "Lists of lists" is just plain redundant, and should be merged into "Lists of topics" and removed from the navbar. "Glossaries" seems longer than it really is because it is in bulleted list format with full pagenames -- it'll shrink down easily. "Fields" is a college curriculum, and those aren't small.
The bias for size is built-in to the title of the lists. So, if you want a really brief list, all we have to do is create one, and figure out what to call it so that it always stays brief. --The Transhumanist 11:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

The duplicated efforts you cited above are support projects, either for development or maintenance for a particular project on Wikipedia or one of its spin-offs. They aren't detrimental to Wikipedia, as they are focused on a particular result. It is to be expected that those projects should have their own support lists. In contrast to those, the reference pages are Wikipedia's top end, especially those on the header bar.

The one project I don't agree with is Wikipedia:Concise. I've dabbled with it from time to time, and have come to the conclusion that it is almost entirely useless. --The Transhumanist 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Vital articles or Wikipedia:Version 0.5 are in much better shape, although they're not particularly reader-oriented. Rfrisbietalk 02:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I didnt mean to suggest they were detrimental, I was suggesting that ignoring their work and coming up with your own list of 'main topics' is detrimental. ie. we already have good lists of vital/core topics, and should be consulting them.
This coincides with my concern that you tend to overfill subjects that you're personally interested in. eg the often oversized sections for philosophy and thinking and nootropics.
Which ties in with the concerns Rfrisbie raised, of whether these articles we link to should be of any predictable standard. I'm worried about all the redlinks and stubs and 'articles of dubious nature' (my pov, but List of basic parapsychology topics makes me shudder to have at the top of List of basic topics); we cannot include these links and claim we're promoting quality articles.
And talking of duplication, there were dozens of non-related links at List of basic topics which I've removed[1]. I'm not sure if you were trying to merge something else in there? (presummably as a part of your proposal below at #Promotion to the sidebar) --Quiddity 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain to me how the topics you removed were not related? Are you placing form over function? Are you stuck on the notion that the titles of the articles must have "basic topics" in them? --The Transhumanist 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
They should be lists, and they should not be duplicates of things that belong elsewhere within this reference system; See #below. I prefered it when it had a singular purpose, like when you took over in November. A place that lists topicwide-cheatsheets/vocab.lists. Would you like to actually answer what I wrote? or just post more rhetorical questions?
Like, why is the entire "Timelines" section there? They should be listed at List of timelines. This is part and parcel of your WP:OWN problem, as again raised 2 sections down at #Tracking article quality. --Quiddity 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Rhetorical? My questions were dead-on. And I was right, you are pushing form over function. It's true that not all of the lists listed are in the same cheat sheet format (form), but so what? The point is to provide good general topical coverage (function). If I don't "own" the page, does that mean you do? However, like you, I prefer discussion over "revert wars". Thanks for bringing it here, but we're on the wrong talk page - this thread should be taking place at Lists of basic topics. --The Transhumanist 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured contents

Notwithstanding all that, I added links to the "Best" articles [2], as well as the navigation templates, only to have Quiddity summarily delete them. I find that very odd. Ignoring the best articles on the "Contents" page is like saying, "The high-quality articles are over there, but we can't acknowledge them here, so we'll pretend like they don't exist." I always support "full and frank disclosure" when it comes to quality. What's going on around the quality issue and how groups of pages are being segregated just smells fishy to me. I don't get into edit wars, so maybe this is a good time for a little break. Rfrisbietalk 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We can acknowledge the featured lists, I just disagree with adding links to all of them in a full new section, and especially at the top of this page. A single link to Wikipedia:Featured content should be enough.
I think we need more people giving feedback, not less! There are all sorts of directions these pages could evolve in, and many are mutually incompatible, eg. our positions could be vastly-overgeneralized as - Are we trying to provide a comprehensive index to 'main topics' (Transhumanist's stance), or pointing out articles that are already of high quality and major importance (Rfrisbie's stance), or providing an easy entry portal to "browse" articles of major importance (Quiddity's stance)? (though that's mixing our strategies from this page with those at the other reference pages). Which I mentally summarise as: quantity, quality, or simplicity. --Quiddity 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything. I also didn't throw in the kitchen sink. I just added something that appeared to be a glaring omission for a "Featured Contents" page. So I would describe my approach as "high-level comprehensive." Rfrisbietalk 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The featured articles lists are tables of contents to the featured content of Wikipedia, and deserve to go on this page. Having a small section on them is a pretty good idea, as they are a class of page types, not just a single type. Though the section didn't need two introductions, one should do. I've added the section back in, under reference pages. --The Transhumanist 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happier with that implementation. --Quiddity 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Promotion to the sidebar

Which pages should we focus on grooming for inclusion on the side bar? (Aside from "portals" and "categories", which still need work). --The Transhumanist 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We could even add Wikipedia:Contents instead of "portals" and "categories"... Like this. That would lead to everything equally. --Quiddity 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I support adding Contents to the sidebar as the parallel page to Help. I also support adding Portal:Browse renamed to "Portal:List" without any substantive changes, calling it "Portals" on the sidebar. The Categorical index is fine with me, calling it "Categories" on the sidebar, using the format I proposed for all pages in this group. I don't see the need for adding any other pages from this group to the sidebar. Rfrisbietalk 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's too bad we lost sight of the original purpose of the sidebar proposal: to make the navbar available everywhere on Wikipedia, converting it from two and three click access to one click access. But after delving into the design of each page of the navbar, I've found the following pages to be either redundant or useless: A-Z, Ref tables, Categorical index, Glossaries, and Lists of lists. Ref tables is redundant with the list system itself, which has multiple tiers. Glossaries is too scant a list to be useful enough to include it at the top level - too many subjects are missing which means everyone will be checking it fruitlessly. The reference nav bar without these would look like this:
Contents  |  Basic topics  |  Topics  |  Fields  |  Overview  |  Portals  |  Categorical index
Where "category index" leads to the category system itself, and not a cover page. In this bar, the links are not too many, not too few. And having "contents" on there ensures access to the reference pages not included in the bar. The same principle applies to the sidebar. All these links would prove highly useful from the sidebar. Then we wouldn't need the reference nav bar at all. --The Transhumanist 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The most redundant list of them all...

Wikipedia:Categorical index. This list is being used as a crutch by the category system. I think the category system should stand on its own -- with a single link on the sidebar leading to the top-most category in the category system. --The Transhumanist 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's linked off the main page, and I don't think it's likely to be deprecated anytime soon. In fact the same argument applies as at List of basic topics: if we don't link it, even less people will try to fix it! As chaotic as the category system is, many people like and use it. --Quiddity 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My argument isn't against the category system, but against the "categories" page. Traffic should be routed directly to the category top end, not to a redundant mirror of it. The link shouldn't be removed from the main page, simply rerouted to the top category, either directly or through a redirect. And once there, users can fix the category system's top end, rather than skip it (which is what the categories page is causing them to do). --The Transhumanist 21:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
But it doensn't have a real top-end, because it's a web of connections, rather than a hierarchical tree. Hence the Categories page. --Quiddity 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories, lists, and series boxes all have distinct advantages and disadvantages. As Quiddity mentioned, the category system is a network, while the list pages are, well, lists. Both types of presentations have value to different users and for different purposes. We shouldn't presume to know which is best for everyone, but simply present what is available in a clear and concise fashion, so readers can make informed decisions for themselves. Rfrisbietalk 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the category system is a network, with its own main pages. See: Category:Categories and Category:Fundamental. --The Transhumanist 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen them hundreds of times. What's your point? My point is different people process information in different ways, and unnecessarily restricting access is inappropriate to a universal resource. Rfrisbietalk 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no restriction of access if the category system is itself implemented properly. My point is that something is screwed up with it if it requires a list as an interface. The entry points to the category system within the category system should be fixed. --The Transhumanist 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience navigating through the category system, and I can confirm what Quiddity and Rfrisbie say: there are multiple entry points, and channelling people to the 'Fundamental' and 'Category' level is most unhelpful. The best way to enter category space, in my opinion, is from an article. Click one of the category links at the bottom of an article, and then surf the category system, and then re-enter article space by cliking on an article you like the look of. Although superficially the category system organises articles, it is also a way to browse Wikipedia. Carcharoth 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I frequently do the same thing, and it's a lot more convenient with the "expandable" subcats. However, I will say it's probably not all that "simple" for a newcomer to get around that way. On the other hand, trying to navigate the "contents" isn't a cakewalk either. Rfrisbietalk 01:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comprehensive outline of "Contents" pages

About the only way any collection of "Contents" pages here is going to make "sense" is to develop a comprehensive outline of what types of information should be covered and then assign that content to different pages with a minimum of duplication. This would satisfy the classic "exhaustive and mutually-exclusive" classification system criterion. Since we're not developing a "category network" here, such a "clean" system (for a wiki) would greatly enhance the usability of these pages. Any takers? Rfrisbietalk 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

     what is involved in adopting a new system

If it is to be done, it should be done properly, based on a examination of the existing content and links. For a system as large as WP, a formal ontological analysis is necessary and appropriate, but will take several years. There is at present in WP several competing classification netweorks: first the cateogories, second the contents pages, and third the portals--with the portals clearly having been introduced as a less formal alternative. I do not think any of them works well: the categories were too hastily designed and then incompletely implemented. The contents pages overlap to a large extent, and are even less completely implemented; the portals are still only selective.
I would be the first to agree it should be done over, and I, like Rfrisbie, am perfectly willing to design one on the basis of my own image of WP--or on our joint one, if they prove compatible. If we are genuises at it, as Melville Dewey was a genius, it might be generally useful. Even so, it would probably add to the confusion, unless it were implemented to replace the current systems. Given the nature of WP, that is not goingto happen. I, like perhaps others, am beginning to build up my own private classification of the page I use--this is a finite task because I only add pages as I need them. and do not have to provide for anything that does not interest me.
True, the nature of a database system is that it can accomodate any number of classifications without the least confusion. This is not however true of the humans who use it--we cannot think in 4 different intellectual dimensions at the same time.DGG 06:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, it's not worth it. I agree. We have our hands full already. --The Transhumanist 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Adopting a new system was never suggested. --Quiddity 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sub-pages hierarchy and purposes

We're trying to clarify what the pages already here are to be used for. Here's how I understand the hierarchy of this system:

Contents | Overview (Basic topics • Topics) | Fields | Glossaries | Lists of lists (Tables) | Portals | Categorical index | A-Z index

Should be self-explanatory. And I would suggest the above as an update for the {{Reference pages (header bar)}}, which is currently was:

Contents | Basic topics | Topics | Fields | Glossaries | Lists of lists | Overview | Portals | Tables | A-Z index | Categorical index

and is currently:

Contents | Basic topics | Topics | Lists of lists | Tables | Fields | Glossaries | Overview | Portals | Categories

Then all content is divided up in relatively obvious ways. eg

Overview: Psychology (Basic topics: List of basic psychology topics · Topics: List of psychology topics) | Field: Psychology | Glossary: (none) | Lists of lists: List of psychology topic lists (Tables: (problem here)) | Portal: Portal:Psychology | Category: Category:Psychology

The only problem I can see, is with List of reference tables. That originally seems to have been where lists got listed, then when there were enough of them for a new master-list page, like List of timelines, those get split-off. So it just needs a thorough check and split effort. --Quiddity 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a cleanup activity of a wiki. It's never going to have a conceptually tight classification system across the board, but it can be incrementally improved to the point where it can be added to the Main Page and sidebar. That's a modest enough objective that is doable. I support the revised header bar, assuming "featured pages" are added to the footer. Rfrisbietalk 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple!

I have one thing to say here (well, apart from the comment up above): Keep It Simple! There are already several complicated contents systems where it is possible to overload yourself with information. The portals are the simplest system, but why not come up with something even simpler? Nice simple pages that it is easy to navigate, keeping things to a minimum, but maximising breadth of coverage. Carcharoth 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The contents page looks good! Carcharoth 00:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere, is a discussion about this being the "Annotated TOC" and another page and/or footer template being the "Concise TOC." Any thoughts ont he "simplicity" of that? Rfrisbietalk 01:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the Featured links back to {{Reference pages (footer box)}}, am directing feedback to here.
I strongly agree with keeping everything as simple/clear/usable as is possible. --Quiddity 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree too, wikipedia has become really, really confusing, just look this talk page, categories should be changed to something like "tags" and only have a couple thousand of them at most!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.226.197 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Page – footer mismatches

Right now, the footer doesn't contain categories listed on the page. That seems fine to me. The footer has three links that aren't on the page: List of countries, List of cycles, and Lists of people. These don't seem to fit in any particular section. Using the "annotated" – "concise" TOC matching approach, should they be added to the page, or be deleted from the footer? Should anything else come or go? Rfrisbietalk 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We could add a new section under "Timelines" for these 3, I'm not sure what to title it though. "Popular lists"? "Fundamental lists"? Something else entirely?
I tried to do a bit of cleanup at List of cycles, but it still needs a thorough checking and culling of non-cycle links. --Quiddity 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit, but my feeling at this point is that it should be removed from the footer, and not added to this page. It's a fairly low level list. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove that, and I'm also going to change List of countries to Lists of countries (though I still don't know where to add that or Lists of people on this page). --Quiddity 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another request for feedback

I added a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. Most replies probably will be listed there. Rfrisbietalk 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They didn't bite, but suggested I go to the Village pump. So, I just invited them over here and added the same request at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. I'm going to put something at CBB too. Rfrisbietalk 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see if I can help stir things up. --The Transhumanist 08:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename cat

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:WikiProject Reference pages. Rfrisbietalk 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tracking article quality

moved to Talk:Lists of basic topics

Page layout style

With all the changes in page layout style going on, I propose they use a style primarily based on that at the Community Portal with similar color schemes at hues 30, 150, 210, 270, and 330. I suggest using Wikipedia:Reference pages as the base model with variations off of that, such as using an accent color like at Wikipedia:Department directory "Editorial departments," when useful. Rfrisbietalk 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, as per my replies here at the end. --Quiddity 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but could you guys add a couple more base hues to the collection? That way, each contents page on the headerbar can have its own color scheme, so that pages with similar content won't get confused. Just a thought. I added the color scheme used on this (Wikipedia:Contents) page to the collection, by flipping the numbers in the color code trio. You guys seem to have a handle on the pallet tools, and I thought it would be easier for you to come up with a couple more. I don't know how they would look, but orangish, yellowish, and reddish, haven't been used yet as base hues for this collection. --The Transhumanist 22:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You've "seen" the palettes at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes. They increment at 10 degress of hue. My impression of rotating closer than 60 degrees is that the shades aren't particularly distinct. Also, color coding by theme is gradually taking shape, like for the help pages, but I wouldn't say it's systematic yet. Again, I suggest looking the the Community Portal for cues on color coding. Rfrisbietalk 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. There seems to be a developing color scheme for certain areas, such as the blue for help pages (help:contents, intro/tutorial, help at bottom of Community portal, etc), or the sandy yellow used in templates on talk namespace pages. Any more selecting of specific colors for other areas should probably be taken really slowly though, and should be addressed at WP:COLOR with lots of queries at the village pump.
I'll ponder alternate schemes for the Contents pages, though anything (legible/accessible/pleasing) is theoretically possible. :) --Quiddity 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Page colouring

Do we need all this coloring at all? The blue is useful for the Wikipedia Help pages to unite them as a group, and within portals and the Main Page for friendliness, but these are in article-space.

I very strongly argue that we should remove the majority of the coloring, before it bleeds over into the rest of article-space, like our broken ref-page header template has in List of geographers. This is very negative because it's harder to edit and bulks up the wikicode, and because it's less professional looking (imho), and because the colouring has no meta-meaning which will confuse anyone looking for a pattern or relevance behind the shades we pick.

I'm happy for Wikipedia:Contents, Wikipedia:Categorical index, and Portal:List to retain colouring, but I believe the rest should be replaced with the greyscale version of our palette, eg: User:Quiddity/sandbox. --Quiddity 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the color and the layout style with borders, headers and backgrounds. Are you suggesting just changing the colors to greys but keeping the styles? My opinion is that color improves Wikipedia, wherever it is, but that's probably not much of a news flash. ;-) If I had to pick just one, I would go with the H210 palette at Wikipedia talk:Colours. I'm not a big fan of grey, and it's tougher to match some of the palettes without having any "saturation," so I'd prefer to try out a few possibilities in sandboxes before doing any wholesale changeovers. Rfrisbietalk 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought we were using the H210 palette to distinguish Help pages? --Quiddity 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
H210 shows up on lots of pages and templates, even though it is very prevalent on the help pages as well. It just says, "Wikipedia" to me. :-) Rfrisbietalk 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm liking that idea a lot more now. Would help unify and simplify. OK, all blue works for me. :) --Quiddity 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The greyscale doesn't work for me. I think I'd go buggy staring at that before long. Having color breaks the monotony, and I think lists look a lot better with color. --The Transhumanist 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the green of Lists of basic topics, but the whole rainbow thing, coupled with the cutesy icons, is getting distinctly AOL/ICQ styled, which I think is a strongly negative visual aesthetic for a project that's trying to get taken seriously. (To put it strongly; and not meaning to invalidate anyones real-life personal aesthetic outside Wikipedia... ;)

The Old style of Wikipedia:Browse was vastly more professional looking than Wikipedia:Categorical index is now (Transhumanist: Did you chose the pink for that one because you dont like it, consciously or subconsciously? ;) --Quiddity 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They greyscale palette doesn't go along with the Main Page, Featured content or Community Portal palettes anymore. Are there any palettes at Wikipedia:Colours you can support? Rfrisbietalk 02:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Hue 0 Saturation 0 palette is what I used at User:Quiddity/sandbox. We don't have to go that extreme, but as you say below, the changes today were most bizarre, and I'd like us to bear in mind the benefits of minimalistic design (and of using white and grey as highlights, instead of just darker shades). As I said above, going all Hue 210 works for me. --Quiddity 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The color changes today are getting very bizarre. I expect continuing down this road will undermine any serious efforts to add "Wikipedia's contents pages" to the respected high-level resources they should and can be. Something has to and will give. Rfrisbietalk 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the extremes in color palettes of late, I propose the following color scheme for all "Contents" pages that use borders, header bars, and color backgrounds, based on the hue of 210 degrees shown at Wikipedia talk:Colours.

Border: (H210 S15 V75) #A3B1BF
Header: (H210 S15 V95) #CEE0F2
Accent color: (H210 S10 V100) #E6F2FF
Main background: (H210 S4 V100) #F5FAFF

Rfrisbietalk 04:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As above, I support that. -Quiddity 05:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think each of the various pages on the Template:Contents pages (header bar) should use a seperate color scheme than the rest. It avoids confusion when jumping back and forth between similar pages. Lists of topics and Lists of lists have similar content, and should be different colors, for instance. --The Transhumanist 07:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply couldn't live with the cyan or 'pumpkin' palettes
I've changed categories and glossaries and overviews to use Hue 210. -Quiddity 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So, based on these changes, what's the pattern? Rfrisbietalk 10:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've changed all except the 4 Wikipedia:Contents#Lists of lists, so that Transhumanist and you and I can continue to clean those up, jumping back and forth between them. Can we leave it like this until that's all done? --Quiddity 10:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If you mean change them to H210 when they're "Contents-ready," that's fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup :) --Quiddity 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also changed the header's and footer's ordering, to match that used at Wikipedia:Contents. --Quiddity 10:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
And the {{List resources footer}} too. --Quiddity 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

TOC titles

Someone keeps removing the "Contents" from the Portal:list TOC. That looks better to me too, but I'd like to have all the TOCs use the same style as well. Any objections to removing the tile from all the other pages too? Rfrisbietalk 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I went one further and carried it through the rest of the pages. (Was doing some clean up on this account's pages, and forgot what account I was logged in under. Man I hate that.) --Ooga Booga 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC), aka The Transhumanist
Works for me. --Quiddity 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contents pages (header bar) – item order

I believe the items in Template:Contents pages (header bar) should follow the basic order of this page's sections. If that order doesn't work for the template, then it doesn't work for this page either. At this point, I hope any further reorderings of items are proposed and supported here first. Rfrisbietalk 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Icons in TOCs & section headings

I first noticed the Nuvola icons on several portals and templates. Personally, I believe they help brand a topic, and related topics, like at Portal:Society. I support continuing using them for Contents page TOCs and section headings, although it might help to reduce them in size a bit. Rfrisbietalk 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against icons in principle, just against the cutesy/cartoony/WinXP/Web2.0 Nuvola icons. However, as I'm not an icon designer, I'm happy to live with these until a better copyright-free set of icons appears.
I'd support reducing them in size a bit, and more importantly having them consistently sized on all these pages, so we don't have to re-download duplicates with minor size differences. Also, if they're the same size in the ToC as in the headings, we'd only have to download one copy of each image. eg - - are 3 different image downloads due to 1 pixel differences.
I'll leave final dimensions up to you :) --Quiddity 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I get it. The headings now are at 30px. Here are two alternate heights: 25px [3] and 20px [4]. I prefer 20px. Comments? Rfrisbietalk 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Look good to me. Maybe compromise with 22px? --Quiddity 03:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Rather than nit-picking that far, I would just go to 25px, which is the size of most of the TOC icons. Rfrisbietalk 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Rfrisbietalk 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

When they are all set at the same size, why do some look smaller than the others?

                     

The books, the people, the head, and the house all look noticeably smaller than the others. --The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The colour in them doesnt come to the edge of the image border, ie they have built in padding. Highlight them (click and drag over the sentences above and below the icons) to see more clearly. The same as the gap/border around Image:Physical world.jpg. However if we change the individual icon sizes to compensate, it'll throw the TOC lines out of alignment, as it is in the thread below. The only solution is to crop the border off the images and upload new ones. (The heart is smaller too) --Quiddity 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Icon selection

Some of the icons leave something to be desired...

  • On the   History icon, you can barely see the map or tell what it is. I don't know what to replace it with, but maybe you have some ideas? --The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Any hourglasses? --Quiddity 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Socrates committed suicide, which imho makes him less than the ideal role-model -- and the icon is just a disembodied head, which looks kind of creepy. Do you have any objections to my replacing him with Plato? --The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    It needs to be square. Plato would throw the whole TOC out of whack, with his 36px big long head! --Quiddity 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    We can adjust that. Just make him smaller: , in the link, or within the pic itself. We can do almost anything with icon images. He didn't start out blue, for instance. The original pic looks like this: . Also, his torso on the right faded, so that will have to be fixed too. --The Transhumanist 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    But the image is rectangular. All the other icons are square. It'll either be longer or thinner than all the others. --Quiddity 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Not a problem - we can do anything, remember? Crop the image a little, and all of a sudden, it's square. When I get time, I'll finish it up - unless you'd like to try your hand at it (it's fun). --The Transhumanist 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • TV screens date back to the 50's, and aren't particularly high-tech. I looked around for an icon of the International Space Station, but couldn't find one. The next best thing I could find was this:  . So, can we use this computer icon instead of the plain monitor?   --The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    If we reduce it to 25px it's getting kinda blurry... :( --Quiddity 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    At 25px, it looks too small. Besides, we can copy and modify the original picture to remove the blur problem and adjust the proportionality. They didn't make "The GIMP" for nothing! Here's what I mean about size:
(25px)
(26px)
(27px)
(28px)
(29px)
(30px)
(31px)
(32px)

See, it's way too small at 25px. We can adjust the size. I don't see what your fixation on 25px is. If text alignment is your concern, we can keep the picture the same size while adusting the size of the image within the pic. --The Transhumanist 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is overpowering the content with tangential icons. Not all readers find them "wikiworthy." They should be no larger than absolutely necessary. They don't appear too small to me (personally, I prefer them even smaller). Consistent sizing is a simple principle of good web page design. Rfrisbietalk 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. --Quiddity 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to differential size. That is, they need to appear to be the same size. Not all of them are the same size proportionally. --The Transhumanist 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
But I'd already answered that preemptively above :) "However if we change the individual icon sizes to compensate, it'll throw the TOC lines out of alignment, as it is in the thread below. The only solution is to crop the border off the images and upload new ones."
So yes, text alignment is our concern, and it's solvable if you're willing to crop the border and upload new images (with whatever GFDL accreditation to source is needed). -Quiddity 00:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Help contents back

Just tangentially, If there are any better arrow icons, I'd love to replace the blue back-arrow in {{Help contents back}} with something a bit less flashy.. --Quiddity 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More? Yes! Less flashy? You make the call. Commons:Category:Arrows Rfrisbietalk 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed to the slightly less distracting nuvola Image:Start.png, though perhaps we should use the upward/top-facing Image:Nuvola actions top.png icon instead? --Quiddity 09:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we have more of a pointing left = "back to Help" metaphor going than a pointing up = "up to Help" metaphor. It's close enough for me as is. Rfrisbietalk 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, everything 'round here tends to use the <-- Back and --> forward concept. Less confusing if you don't change it for this project. ---J.S (t|c) 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename Category:Glossaries?

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15#Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbietalk 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not ready for Main Page players

So, what's it going to take to have this group of pages ready for a link to the Main Page? Rfrisbietalk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to finish the overhaul of the 4 Wikipedia:Contents#Lists of lists pages, removing duplication and redundancy, and once that's done, see if there are any new merge options, to reduce the confusion.
I've outlined my understanding (somewhat non-clearly) up at #Sub-pages hierarchy and purposes, all of which I think Rfrisbie agrees with, but I'm not sure what Transhumanist intends? Transhumanist, I'm intrigued by the way List of articles, an overview is developing, and I'm guessing you've changed your focus into making that the pinnacle of autodidactic epiphany?! ;) -- So can we return Lists of basic topics to being a list of just "basic topic lists" (topical vocab reference-cards/cheatsheets - eg)? And ditto for Lists of topics returning to being just a list of "topic lists" (alphabetical indexes of topics - eg)? ----Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
First, since this was such a long post, I've split it up and extended your signature to each section. (Feel free to return it to the way it was before if you are in any way offended by this action). As for List of articles, an overview, none of the links included on there are lists -- they are all articles, key topics (hopefully) of the main subject areas. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You like the cheat sheet format. I'm flattered. Based on your very strongly stated desires, I've been thinking about a solution. And finally I think I've come up with one: On Lists of basic topics, the History section can be moved down one level into the List of basic history topics. Likewise, the Geography section can easiy fit into List of basic geography topics, and the Reference section can be tucked away in a new list of its own called List of basic library research topics. ("List of basic research topics" doesn't work as a title, because "basic research" has its own meaning, as does "research topics", while "research" includes scientific labwork, which makes a title combining these very ambiguous. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
For example: Lists of basic topics - much of which I think should be moved to List of articles, an overview (eg most of the history and geography sections), and the reference section is a duplicate of that at Overviews, and more than 50% of the technology section is redlinked. --Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
List of articles, an overview only contains articles. Always has. Even the reference section - it doesn't overlap at all with the reference section in Basic, since in basic the links are all to lists of those things, not to root articles (with the exception of section links). Though the solution I presented above should fix things to your satisfaction. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Another example: Lists of topics#Social sciences and society - the psychology lists are all duplicates of those at List of psychology topic lists. --Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That seperate list is not an easy one to find, as it is in that weird side-branch called Lists of lists, which I really think should be folded into Lists of topics (but see below). Once that's done, the main link will be included, with no need for the redundancy. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If we removed all the duplication from these 4 reference pages, it'd be a lot clearer whether some of these pages might be usefully merged, and we could try that again. --Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The duplication which you are citing is that of subjects, not the actual pages listed, therefore this issue extends to Portal:List and Wikipedia:Categorical index as well. There's a huge overlap in content coverage between all the pages on the Template:Contents pages (header bar)|navigation header]]. It's close to 100%, since all the pages have the same scope: all knowlege. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Finally, the List of reference tables, which as i said above, just needs a thorough check and split effort (into new topical "lists of lists"). It's just a dumping ground for 'lists' at the moment. Once the stuff above is done, a better solution or conception of List of reference tables' final purpose will hopefully emerge. I figure we should leave that page for last though.--Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, with a modification of that plan. You are right about it being a dumping ground. All of the entries in this dumping ground belong on other lists. We need to remove the links from the reference tables page and place them in the appropriate lists, all of which should be accessible from Lists of topics. Spread the links out in the tree. This is a problem where the target lists are indices and not tables of contents, which may call for a rename of those to Index of ____ topics. Like the one on mathematics and the one on psychology. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
How does all that sound? For my part, I'll be checking over Lists of lists for redirects and duplicates, over the next few days. --Quiddity 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that it? I'll do something, but I'm not sure exactly what right now. ;-) I guess I'll throw in List of glossaries. For some reason, they've become a bit controversial as well. "Lists of terms" with no definitions, even from Wictionary, seem to be an issue, as well as what Category:Glossaries should be. I noted that issue at #Rename Category:Glossaries? and I would appreciate further input at that discussion. Rfrisbietalk 19:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of the above suggestions. --The Transhumanist 10:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we're all in agreement! :) Lots of good ideas. (and lots of work!)
I'd suggest that we bold the "lists of lists" entries at the "Lists of topics" page (once merged into it), so they stand out more as being sub-branches. (the ones of major importance/interest anyway...) And I'm done checking the links, it's ready to be merged whenever.
And renaming the indexes of topics sounds excellent too. --Quiddity 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Bold might be a little much. Italic would give them the right weight I think, without competing with the list headings and list leads (which are in bold). --The Transhumanist 07:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Lists of lists merged into Lists of topics (or wherever appropriate, eg lists of people). --Quiddity 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, we need a new namespace

I've made just such a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#It's time for a new namespace: "Contents:".    --The Transhumanist 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My back is to this face. I don't see the need. Rfrisbietalk 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A slightly odd way of putting it. Sort of a nose in the air type of response. *shrugs* --The Transhumanist 07:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I responded in kind to your heading, which is patronizing. You tend to portray opinion as fact. Expect to get back what you put out. Rfrisbietalk 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How many lists are on Wikipedia, not including redirects?

Is there a way to get a list of all the lists on Wikipedia without redirects? --The Transhumanist 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. --Quiddity 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross-referenced footer nav boxes

Here's an example of a contents page footer nav box by a "type" of page (portals) [5]. Maybe something like this also could apply to other types, e.g., glossaries and ...? When present on a contents page, users can browse more contents, or more in-depth aspects of a type of page. Rfrisbietalk 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what links you would use in a glossaries navbox? Would the category link not cover everything? Or do you mean more of a series box ("in-depth aspects"), than a navbox? --Quiddity 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

List naming issue

There's an argument over how lists of lists should be named. See Talk:List of regional bird lists.   The Transhumanist   02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries

A user has been trying to remove all of the glossary pages to Wictionary. I expressed my opposition at Category talk:Glossaries. Also, I'll help add links from the category that aren't on the list. Rfrisbietalk 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I added all missing terms from the main glossary category to the list, so I reinserted the link. I'll go through the subcats next. Rfrisbietalk 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff :) --Quiddity 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The "subcats" went bye-bye, but I looked through Category:Terminology anyway and added a few more "glossaries." My work here is done. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And again, please see Talk:List_of_glossaries#Mass_deletion.2Fmove.3F. (I'm busy till tomorrow) --Quiddity 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lists "under construction" (at best) not for "contents" pages

I removed all "list" red links I could find on "contents" pages under the same principle as Category:Portals under construction. Any type of "contents compilation" page such as these should be developed before they are added to a higher-order contents page. Red links should be reserved for topical lists that help to identify needed articles, such as at List of academic disciplines. Rfrisbietalk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do the same for the stub lists linked from Lists of basic topics. Transhumanist's to-do list is already available on the list's talkpage, where any editor can find it and use it to contribute. --Quiddity 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Transhumanist: Preemptive plea - Please please cleanup the many linked-lists that are remaining, before adding back any of the stub-lists. Thanks. -Quiddity 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we swap "topics" with "basic topics" order-wise, in the navbars and on this contents page? Lists of topics is clearly the more well-developed and thought-out page at this point, and should be placed first. --Quiddity 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just noticing the navbar order doesn't match the Contents order again. Using different words for the same page doesn't help. Do you want to try to match orders again? If so, go for it. Rfrisbietalk 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Will do. I'm going to split the lists apart from the overviews again, but I'll put them above glossaries to keep Tranhumanist happy :) I added in the lists of countries and people to. --Quiddity 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposed "list" rule-of-thumb: If it's "under construction," e.g., stub, red link, acknowledged to be substantially incomplete, then it should not be included on a "Contents" page. Instead, such pages should be listed on a talk page "To do list" if someone indicates an interest in developing it. Rfrisbietalk 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Thoroughly agree. -Quiddity 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Proposed addendum to the rule of thumb: if someone (unaware of the rule of thumb) adds a redlink, then that implies an intention to work on it or at least a request for that page to be created. Instead of deleting such links, they should be moved to the talk page.  The Transhumanist   22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where did you put the links you removed from the List of basic topics?  The Transhumanist   22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Empty stubs were removed, unsolved problem lists were duplicated at Overviews, thought lists were duplicated at lists of thinking-related topics, and parapsychology was removed because I refuse to promote ignorance ;). I don't know why I left the non-basic geography lists, they should all be removed too, as are duplicated at lists of topics. Which brings me to my suggestion... --Quiddity 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

If we used the style of Lists of topics#History and events, with the basic topic list as the root of a branch (and bold), we could merge those 2 topic list pages quite nicely. That would eliminate the redundancy problems, it would be a more centralized topic list and so gather more eyeballs/editors, and would be less confusing for a reader (hopefully). What do you think? --Quiddity 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Make it so! :-) Rfrisbietalk 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I object. Having them mixed together would obscure the basic lists, which are much easier to find and browse on their own list. There are many more subjects listed in the topics list set than in the basic list set. So it would become a scanning exercise in order to use a mixed page if your goal was to browse basic topic lists. The two lists should remain separate. The Transhumanist   08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename of indices pages

As Transhumanist says above "This is a problem where the target lists are indices and not tables of contents, which may call for a rename of those to Index of ____ topics. Like the one on mathematics and the one on psychology.".

I agree, and propose we rename these as we find them. --Quiddity 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone somewhere once said, maybe, "There's no such thing as a table of contents for Wikipedia as a whole because it doesn't have page numbers." I tend to agree. Personally, I oppose renaming anything of the form, "List of X topics." They are lists and they are of "topics" – "article names" in common wikilingo. They should be categorized as Category:Lists of terms, not "lists of indices." Category:Lists is top level, nothing for indices. Wikipedia distinguishes Categories, lists, and series boxes. Indices are not part of the mix. The lists we link to from contents pages might be arranged by subject or alphabetically, they might be of articles, lists, portals, or categories. The complementary unstated assertion is that "any list organized by subject is a table of contents" does not hold. Changing the name of alpha-sorted "List of X topics" to "Index of X topics" would have wide-ranging implications of list classifications throughout Wikipedia and should not be undertaken without a broadly based consensus. Rfrisbietalk 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Topics and articles are not the same thing. A list of topics can have topics listed that don't (and might not for months or years, or ever) have an article of their own. And many lists don't even refer to their contents as topics, when the type of item listed will do. A list of dogs for instance.  The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
"Table of contents" and "Index" refer to the format of the page. But both imply linking to articles in Wikipedia, while a list can be of anything (including non-articles). Redlinks are irrelevant, because on an index they simply refer to planned articles, and therefore are appropriat on an index (as planned or requested articles, they are appropriate just about anywhere).  The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't have "lists of indices", rather an "index of indices", or a master index.  The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
But for those pages which "index" fits more accurately than "list", a rename is appropriate. I agree with Quiddity with one reservation: that consensus be acquired on a specific page when a unilateral move like that may offend the caretakers of the page. The caretakers of the mathematics lists for instance, have been in ongoing discussions on what to name their lists. It wouldn't be appropriate to steamroll those discussions and do a rename directly.  The Transhumanist   22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably the whole idea should be run past the folks at Wikipedia talk:List guideline. --Quiddity 02:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to place one or more of these pages' links on the Main Page

See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page

 The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EContents_Archive_3_5d1b.html"