Talk:List of basic United States topics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Why does this exist?
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic Canada topics. Why does this article exist in parallel to the main article United States. And who decided that a topic like National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is basic while Major League Baseball, say, is not?
I'm going to tag this to show these concerns. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- The list exists for the same reason that all the basic topics lists exist. They're lists that provide a summary or overview of their respective topics. Some people, like me, find outlines useful for skimming and reviewing subjects - they aren't cluttered with a lot of prose. Their "cheat sheet" format provides a convenient and standardized way for a topic to be broken down. In addition to this, they are part of Wikipedia's Contents system. As such, they are useful for navigating Wikipedia, and together provide a rudimentary outline of knowledge (still under construction). Navigation is one of the main purposes of lists. See Wikipedia's guideline on lists for more information. The Transhumanist 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll have to look into the background to this. But what about the choice? Why do obscure federal agencies get in while major topics like US sports do not? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You are mistaken about "getting in". The list is under construction. If something is missing, then it's because it hasn't been added yet - you are welcome to join in and help complete the list. On the other hand, if something is on the list that you believe shouldn't be here, it's obviously because somebody added it in. If you think something isn't "basic", then explain why on this talk page and work it out with the other person. For background, a good place to start is Wikipedia:Contents - this list is part of the table of contents of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Lists. I hope my comments have helped clear things up for you. The Transhumanist 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There is no 'getting in'. It's not like an article, which has POV issues, notability and reference wars. It's just a collection of articles that are grouped together for convenience. If you want to add 'Federal Government' and stick links to agencies, go for it. No one's stopping you. These are what make Wikipedia navigable. Celarnor (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my experience there is as much warring over lists as there is over articles. List of massacres is a recent example. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Over the years, there has been very little edit warring (if you even want to call it that) over the various lists of basic topics. This is probably because their concept is very simple: they're intended to provide a general overview of Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects. If coverage goes a little overboard, it's not much of a problem, because scrolling through each page is very easy and quick. If coverage is sparse, the major links most likely lead to whatever links are missing, facilitating further browsing and at the same time providing an easy way to find those links and add them to the list. The "basic" nature of the lists is less important than their function as structured browsing tools for their subjects. Like topic-oriented site maps. As long as they are useful, there's not much motive to fight over them. They're just so basic. :) The Transhumanist 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, if it's that easy, I shall go through the list and remove topics which I do not consider to be basic. I may add some others that occur to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I take out state governments and you stick them straight back. You clearly own this article. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- What, because I reverted one edit? Clearly, you're being silly. You even stated that it was redundancy (and not basicness) that was the reason you removed them. Sure, some of those links are redirects, but those will be replaced with stand-alone articles in time, so there's no need to worry about it. With respect to government in the U.S., state government is certainly relevant. Many users will probably want to look up the government of their state, so it makes sense to include them. Their state government would be a basic U.S. topic to them. Just my 2 cents. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- A single state is not the United States. Since the point of this list is speedy navigation, it should avoid clutter by using obvious hierarchies. Either send people to the main articles on the individual states or have a List of basic topics for each state. Currently you're including stuff like Music of Idaho and it seems quite silly. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- What, because I reverted one edit? Clearly, you're being silly. You even stated that it was redundancy (and not basicness) that was the reason you removed them. Sure, some of those links are redirects, but those will be replaced with stand-alone articles in time, so there's no need to worry about it. With respect to government in the U.S., state government is certainly relevant. Many users will probably want to look up the government of their state, so it makes sense to include them. Their state government would be a basic U.S. topic to them. Just my 2 cents. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I try to stay away but can't resist looking further down this. There's a list of cuisine items there. What would you expect to be first on this list? Let me give you a clue: as American as...?. But instead of the obvious Apple Pie, we have bizarre entries like General Tso's Chicken. Sorry, but I'm afraid this article is a joke - a purely idiosyncratic judgement as to what is basic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very happy that you can't resist. The basic lists need more participants. I feel like I've been building the whole set (though my watchlist shows an increasing number of edits to these lists, the frequency is still pretty low), and I've gotten burnt out on these more than once. Welcome to the project!
- I happen to agree with you on the cuisine list. I didn't create that section, but I try not to be too judgemental. I figured it would come up in discussion sooner or later. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I take out state governments and you stick them straight back. You clearly own this article. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, if it's that easy, I shall go through the list and remove topics which I do not consider to be basic. I may add some others that occur to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Over the years, there has been very little edit warring (if you even want to call it that) over the various lists of basic topics. This is probably because their concept is very simple: they're intended to provide a general overview of Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects. If coverage goes a little overboard, it's not much of a problem, because scrolling through each page is very easy and quick. If coverage is sparse, the major links most likely lead to whatever links are missing, facilitating further browsing and at the same time providing an easy way to find those links and add them to the list. The "basic" nature of the lists is less important than their function as structured browsing tools for their subjects. Like topic-oriented site maps. As long as they are useful, there's not much motive to fight over them. They're just so basic. :) The Transhumanist 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- In my experience there is as much warring over lists as there is over articles. List of massacres is a recent example. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no 'getting in'. It's not like an article, which has POV issues, notability and reference wars. It's just a collection of articles that are grouped together for convenience. If you want to add 'Federal Government' and stick links to agencies, go for it. No one's stopping you. These are what make Wikipedia navigable. Celarnor (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've put a synthesis tag on this to indicate my concern. I'd like to see some sourcing to justify what is or isn't a basic topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- All articles are a synthesis of the material available on their topics. And this article synthesizes material in precisely the same way that articles do. You've used the synthesis tag in the wrong context. ;) The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've put a synthesis tag on this to indicate my concern. I'd like to see some sourcing to justify what is or isn't a basic topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The overall list is going to be idiosyncratic no matter what approach you push. The reason is that one can find just about anything from the myriad introductory-level books on the United States. Such books include examples. And there are a lot of examples in introductory-level books. Therefore, seeking out references for "basicness" is impractical and a waste of time. It's better to simply discuss the contents of the list here, and determine by consensus what should be included or not, or how much coverage should be provided (such as how many example cuisine items to present). If we create a good approximation, that's fine, because the primary function of the list is as a navigation aid. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I doubt anyone is going to step forward with the sources you desire. I've been focusing on building these lists, and if I switched over to sourcing them, it would slow development of these lists down to a crawl. One alternative is AfD, but that won't help, because deleting this list would just create a hole we can't (or won't) fill in the coverage of the basic topic list set - one of Wikipedia's tables of contents. To have the U.S. missing from the table of contents would be a major oversight, and a bigger problem than having an unsourced list. The community will most likely not go for deletion - the few AfDs that have been held concerning basic topics lists have been viewed as misconceived. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's not good to have two cooks in one kitchen. I might make a List of basic topics for the UK in which my own idiosyncratic ideas would prevail. Football, cricket and other sports would be high on the list, for example - not because I care about them but because the British do. And stuff like Cheshire County Council (the equivalent of a state government) would not appear because few people care. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I doubt anyone is going to step forward with the sources you desire. I've been focusing on building these lists, and if I switched over to sourcing them, it would slow development of these lists down to a crawl. One alternative is AfD, but that won't help, because deleting this list would just create a hole we can't (or won't) fill in the coverage of the basic topic list set - one of Wikipedia's tables of contents. To have the U.S. missing from the table of contents would be a major oversight, and a bigger problem than having an unsourced list. The community will most likely not go for deletion - the few AfDs that have been held concerning basic topics lists have been viewed as misconceived. The Transhumanist 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Statistics
It's interesting to compare what we have with the stats of what readers are looking for. I just checked the stats for page hits in Feb 2008. Filtering out the non-USA topics like Canine reproduction (a monster hit from mid Feb) we have the following. If nothing else, I suggest that you add Lost to the list of basic USA topics. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
6 Barack Obama 10 John McCain 13 United States 14 Chinese New Year 16 Deaths in 2008 18 Cloverfield 29 YouTube 32 Lost (TV series) 34 2 Girls 1 Cup 35 MySpace 37 World War II 39 Super Smash Bros. Brawl 40 List of songs in Rock Band 41 Miley Cyrus 46 Global warming 48 Lost (TV series) 49 Internet Movie Database 50 Abraham Lincoln 55 Super Bowl XLII 60 New York City 61 Superdelegate 62 George W. Bush 64 Facebook 66 Scientology 67 World War I 70 80th Academy Awards 74 Hotmail 75 Obama 79 Britney Spears 81 Hannah Montana 82 Hillary Clinton 83 United States presidential election, 2008 85 There Will Be Blood 87 Lost 88 Super Tuesday 90 Michael Jackson 95 Waterboarding 99 Ronald Reagan 100 Lost (season 4)
[edit] incorporated organized territories
... simply says "none since 1959", can a reference explaining that be placed there? Just a link to the territory that was up til '59 or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.99.192 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines".
The Transhumanist 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
