Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/topics redesign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It took me awhile to grasp what exactly you were getting at here. But the basic topic lists need to be clearly identifiable by beginners. As long as that is accomplished, I'm fine with it. --Nexus Seven 09:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think maybe we should use an asterisk or something to denote which things link to lists and which things link to articles, because some of the things (e.g. philosophy) have links after "Basic topics / Article" which are both lists and articles. Maybe (because you already started) - all articles bold? --gatoatigrado 17:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a merge tag on List of reference tables. This list almost completely overlaps with that one, though isn't as comprehensive. --Nexus Seven 20:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Reference tables has very little overlap with this Topics redesign page. Any attempt to merge Reference tables, would make this page at least 3 times longer.

I have a feeling that we're already attempting too much, just by merging 3 large list pages. Some people do value the simplicity of that Basic Topics page... We have to design for other people's benefit, not for ourselves. --Quiddity·(talk) 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. These things need to be separate. I think there is value in having a short, quick simple list -- like books that have two tables of contents, one that just lists the chapters, and one that also lists the sections within the chapters.

I agree. Merging ref tables makes it too large. Instead I've added the cool formatting of this page to the List of reference tables. --Nexus Seven 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 New section: Health Sciences 2 Break-out sections 3 Page name 4 template usage 5 Ojections to this proposal 6 straw poll

[edit] New section: Health Sciences

Some material which is clearly health science related, most notably lists relating to psychology and psychiatry, are currenly grouped within the 'social sciences' section. Whilst psycology does have a place there, the sub-lists appear to be about disorders rather than behaviors (ie, more medical rather than social). I'd work on this myself, but I'm confused by the template being used - 'm not sure how to use it. LinaMishima 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is going to broken out into its own section, it should be made as wide as possible. I suggest calling the section Health, and include everything on that subject. --Nexus Seven 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Break-out sections

Come to think of it, the various break-out sections should have placeholders in their umbrella fields. That is, Geography, which is a physical science should have a "see Geography" pointer in the Physical science section, and History should have a "see History" pointer in the Social science section. Where would the pointer for Health sciences or Health be? --Nexus Seven 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Social sciences", "physical sciences and nature"? LinaMishima 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I still think "Health sciences" should be in medical, and everything else is pretty well defined. What's wrong with "social sciences" and "nature"? The studies have been separate in academia as far as I know. Geology may be a physical science, but Geography is a superset as I know it, including political boundaries. I think medical related things should be in "physical sciences" and sociology or psychology things should be in social sciences. I don't think the page is long enough that we need to have pointers to the main sections (history), but I think the biotechnology pointer to the medical in physical sciences was warranted. --gatoatigrado 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with "social sciences" and "nature", I was suggesting where pointers to Health sciences could go. Many of the current subtopics under psychology are actually more related to psychiatry, which is why I suggested that move elsewhere on this talk page. LinaMishima 02:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

I think this hypothetical page's title should be discussed first, with no decision made until we get much wider input. Wikipedia:Reference pages is a good candidate for being moved to Wikipedia:Contents too.

There have been a lot of name changes of top level pages recently; maybe let's let the dust settle on those first. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I like Wikipedia:Reference pages named just the way it is, because that name supports the sidebar redesign perfectly. Wikipedia:Contents was a redirect page pointing to "allpages", so I've changed it to point to Wikipedia:Reference pages, which is closer semantically. --Nexus Seven 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it is targetted at the "Topics" entry on the sidebar redesign, I assumed this new page would simply be called Lists of topics. Though List of topics, Wikipedia:Topics, and Wikipedia:Subjects also work. --Nexus Seven 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike the current name of Wikipedia:Reference pages, or Wikipedia:Contents, for the article's current contents. This is because the page appears to be very much a guide to understanding the reference page system, rather than an entry point to the reference system. Only on further reading, or rather on the second screen of material, is the access to the reference pages provided. The current explaination material, whilst useful to some, detracts from KISS, and makes the page seems more complex than it really should be. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this, but in theory this should be a very simple job of creating a brief summary of methods, prettier TOC (I'm keen on the main access points seeming as 'friendly' as possible), then only giving a sentance of explaination before each reference type is detailed. Explaination of theory of the organisational schemes should be moved to other articles. LinaMishima 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for waiting, except for the "list of lists of lists of articles". It is confusing. I used the wording "basic topics" in the page to avoid this wordiness and apparent lack of meaning - it sounds like those sites which are lists of links. I called it Contents at first becuase it seemed related to Table of Contents, similar to paper encyclopedias. Although the meaning might not be optimal, using standards should be considered. --gatoatigrado 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template usage

There was a comment that the template usage should be explained. I made the comma addition automatic for WP Contents heading. Please at least start social sciences. --gatoatigrado 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

available templates

• if you have an article, use WP Contents heading
• if you don't have a (relevant) article, e.g. Regions in history, use WP Basic contents heading
• if you have another article (not a list), use WP Contents article. At the time, it just makes it bold, but we might decide to designate articles with an asterisk instead of boldface later, so please use it.

usage - wp contents heading

• first argument - article name
• second argument - basic list (leave blank if none)
• third argument - more links, plain wikitext

usage - wp basic contents heading

• first argument - name
• third argument - links, plain wikitext

usage - wp contents article

• first argument - plain wikitext

examples

{{WP Contents heading|Architecture|architectural}}
{{WP Contents heading|Architecture|architectural|more links}}
{{WP Contents heading|Architecture||more links}}
{{WP Basic contents heading|List of Philosophers|wikitext}}

Architecture: basic topics
Architecture: basic topics, more links
Architecture: more links
List of Philosophers: wikitext

[edit] Ojections to this proposal

I've been comparing usability between this page and the existing top-level pages. This page is far clunkier and harder to use. Lists of basic topics makes it easy to navigate basic topics, without having to second guess what the links are for. On the integrated list, some of the links which were included on Lists of basic topics have lost their "basic" context. Everything on the basic page is basic, so there is no second guessing there. --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"second guess what the links are for" - good point, but I think that the bold / not bold for articles is a good point. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section in each box throws off the whole design, and is a seperate list on the same subject area. Having two lists doesn't make sense, and leaves the reader wondering "Why are these in a seperate list?" By comparison, all the lists on the existing top level pages are congruent and easy to understand. --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but there are some good overview articles that aren't covered. If you have a better idea, why not edit? --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is very difficult to edit. The template system is convoluted and will probably be intimidating to new users (some of whom are quite knowledgable and will want to jump in and improve the lists). The current top-level pages are much easier to understand and edit. --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

couldn't disagree more. The template system is extremely flexible, fully explained on the talk page, and used on most Wikipedia pages. If you would like me to change it to named parameters, that's fine, but it's more concise this way. In two edits, anyone can change the dash (now a colon), whether the pages appear as a list, a bulleted or numbered list, or something not on new lines separated by punctuation. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The existing top-level pages are easier to navigate because there's one choice per subject - each list was designed to serve a particular function (beginner research, advanced research, etc.). Portals are available for browsing a given subject area, but this proposal seems to be trying to fit miniportals for every subject onto a single page. While portals are for browsing specific subjects areas, the top-level pages are for browsing Wikipedia. The proposal loses this essence of those pages, and defeats the purpose of the original pages in the process.

• Why force beginners onto a comprehensive page? It makes no sense to throw beginners into the deep end of the pool.
• Advanced users could do without the duplication - the basic topics are all included in the more comprehensive topic links, so having both list links on the page will only slow advanced users down. (Having duplicate links forces the reader to read them and also to make a decision to not click on those -- these extraneous activities are eliminated on the specialized function lists). --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"miniportals for every subject onto a single page" - not at all, portals contain content, this does not.

"each list was designed to serve a particular function" - As a newcomer to the browsing features (I had always used search) - I found the many many lists more confusing than beneficial. Looking at something that says "basic topics" (or whatever you want to change it to) and "full topic list" on the same page is much easier to navigate. I suppose there's a difference between people browsing the pages just to learn something, and someone looking up information in a subject area. For the first case, I think your argument wins, for the second case, I think this page is better. "having both list links on the page will only slow advanced users down" - why is this? Is "full topic list" ambiguous? --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The top-level pages also serve as surveys of Wikipedia's topic coverage, by function. With all this data crammed onto one page, it is not as easy to see the "state of the 'pedia. --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"state of the 'pedia" - it doesn't show which topics have a list of "Basic subtopics" and not a "full topic list", and it doesn't show which topics have an overview link and no subtopic lists whatsoever. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After using the various pages for browsing, I've come to the conclusion that the proposed page hinders more than helps navigation - it takes a lot of discernment to tell what you are looking at on this page and how the data is related -- especially for beginners. It's too complex. The original pages are much simpler. My recommendation is that subject-based browsing should be optimized via the portal system. The current top-level pages should be retained because they are highly useful for cross-subject navigation, for surveying Wikipedia, and they are easier to edit. --Nexus Seven 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen 08:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"are much simpler" - but they aren't necessarily accurate or useful. Basic topics and overviews are fine pages, but Topics is a terrible page; much of the links are either articles or redirects to the basic topics. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your multiple "crammed onto this page" reasons, I don't think having something concise is bad. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You made some good points at first and then sort of ranting; please reconsider some of your allegations. Also, let's get some more opinions. I think it's time for a straw poll. --gatoatigrado 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll

Even though the "social sciences" section isn't done yet - before I spend more time I think it's finished enough for people to voice their opinions.

• for this page, but with modifications. Being the original editor, I know that there was a lot of redundant information, particularly links in the Lists of Topics that redirected to the Lists of Basic Topics. I think there are several good points of this page.

1. flexibility - the template system allows us to change the look of the page at any time.
2. at least two pages combined, maybe three with overviews (if that ends up being combined). Many lists of lists can be confusing.
3. better wording - Bold article titles, with "Basic topics" under each one, is less ambiguous than "list of lists of lists"

However I'll admit that there are several things that need to be modified.

1. It needs to be alphabetized.
2. See also links need to be integrated or deleted, although they do show some topics needing subtopic lists
3. perhaps some long "more links" (see template description above) could be in a sublist. It's concise this way, but if it would improve readability the other way, it might be good. It could potentially cause rather focused lists to be more pronounced and not appear as under a general topic, but perhaps it could be a sublist using the <small> tags for clarification.

If this doesn't work, I won't be offended. If it does fail, I sincerely hope that the improvements here can be carried into the existing pages. --gatoatigrado 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Against merger

1. I am against merging. If you want to put up this page in addition to the basic topics lists, etc., I don't care. Maurreen 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an experiment in democracy; please provide a rationale. You can just say you agree with Nexus or parts of his opinions if you want. --gatoatigrado 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This page was designed to eliminate redundant information. Personally (although your opinion is as valid as mine) I would rather see this page replace the others or be deleted. --gatoatigrado 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What I said before, or at least tried to, is that I like the other pages as they are. I don't find them redundant, but helpful. They give different sizes and formats for different purposes. Maurreen 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm afraid I must agree with Maureen and Nexus. As a mergist at heart, I love the idea; but the aims of each page are just too different. Lists of topics is massively inclusive and sprawling (and in need of cleanup/oversight), whereas basic topics and overviews aim to be simple (relatedly, I disagree with having all those redlinks as "placeholders" in the basic topics list). This experiment will definitely be useful to think about though, from the style to the purpose. (Many pairs from {{Reference pages (header bar)}} could potentially be merged. But I'm thinking that they should be cleaned up first, and completely understood, so we all know where they are/were aimed at.) --Quiddity·(talk) 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I redlinked those so I could see them. I'm bluing them as fast as I can. If you could tackle one or two, that would sure help. --Nexus Seven 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Have I mentioned that you're addicted to lists? ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As if being addicted to Wikipedia isn't bad enough. :-) --Nexus Seven 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)