Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Contents/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Objection to the title change of "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"

On a related subject, concerning the Outline of Knowledge...

Fram changed the capitalization of the OOK, which is now grammatically incorrect and conflicts with an article title in the main namespace.

Please see the discussion thread concerning this at Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge".

The Transhumanist 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning RfC campaigning directly upon the contents User Interface pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Verbal has been campaigning against the Outline of Knowledge directly within Wikipedia's user interface.

He has been posting POV messages on the Portal:Contents page (Wikipedia's main table of contents), and placing "disputed" tags in the menu ({{Contents pages (header bar)}}) that appears at the top of that page and all of its subpages) and in the footer menu ({{Contents pages (footer box)}}) that appears at the bottom of contents pages.

Here is an example of one of his campaigning attempts:

  • Outline of Knowledge (Disputed) —expanding on the overview above, this set of outlines shows the structure of knowledge and its various branches, and serves as a table of contents for those subjects and their coverage on Wikipedia. Note: An RfC has been demanded by the community to establish the scope of outlines, whether they should exist in mainspace, and whether they should exist as a type of article at all. Until this RfC is resolved, no outlines should be created and WP:LIST and WP:MOS should be followed.

He's telling people directly on the Portal page not to create outline articles, setting policy unilaterally on his own. He's out of control.

It is my very strong opinion that POV-pushing and project protests belong on the talk page, and not in the Table of Contents itself. Portal:Contents is a major component of Wikipedia's user interface, and it should not be mucked up by process. It's disruptive.

Another disruptive tactic Verbal has been engaged in is inserting tags directly into Wikipedia's user interface (navigation templates: menus and navigation footers), including the menu and footer of Portal:Contents, which are displayed on many prominent navigation pages.

Here are some examples:

In the footer, he created a "Disputed" section, and moved the link to the Outline of Knowledge under it:

After that was removed, he replaced it with a "disputed" tag:

Also as part of his campaign against articles named "Outline of", Verbal has been removing the links to the Outline of Knowledge page. He has repeatedly removed it from {{Contents pages (header bar)}} in direct defiance of several editors who have objected to his actions - in the discussion thread immediately above, in the template's edit history, and on his user talk page.

Basically, in addition to his protests and campaigning efforts, Verbal has been trying to block or divert traffic destined to the list of outlines. In the process he has been disconnecting that subpage from the very portal it has always belonged to, without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors.

This is not appropriate behavior for a Wikipedia editor.

Verbal should be required to stop tampering with and campaigning within the UI, and to stop trying to block traffic to or divert traffic from the Outline of Knowledge.

The Transhumanist 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This disruption has gone on long enough. I suggest this WP:SPA be topic banned from this area, except in working on the RfC, until the resolution of the same. Verbal chat 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If everyone put half the effort into fixing up the various navigational pages, that they do into attacking and defending them, then the world would be a better place...

I've made a new attempt to summarize the problems at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft#Restart, and once I've spent a few hours in this glorious summer sun, I'll devote my evening to hammering away at some of the outlines (and the disastrous Wikipedia:Outlines and wikiproject pages). Assistance, as ever, is appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the edit wars on the templates could just stop. Verbal, until consensus at the rfc is reached to remove the links, could you please lay low here. I'm sure you agree that the edit war taking place is not good. -- penubag  (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempts at compromise is not editwarring, what TT is doing is editwarring. If "outlines" are to remain on this page the full facts need to be presented. Otherwise they go. Verbal chat 11:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not for you to decide. There is no consensus to muck up the contents page and the templates with such notices and tags. Also, your POV comes through the notice loud and clear - the discussion page is a much more appropriate place for you to do your anti-outline campaigning. The Transhumanist 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be instructive to look at who is trying to improve "outlines" and lists and navigation pages in general, and articles in general, and has a wider interest in improving all articles, and then looking at who is a WP:SPA pushing for protection of their very very small walled garden. TT, if you are unwilling to accept compromise then OOK should be removed - you have had ample time to establish consensus for your actions. Verbal chat 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
First, outlines are very much the opposite of a walled garden, as hundreds of links lead into the system, and thousands of links lead out of it, making it more like a traffic terminal helping thousands of people explore Wikipedia and find information that interests them. No walls, just roads - part of the information highway.
Second, an editor who works on outlines only is no more an SPA than an editor who works on prose articles exclusively. Those are just 2 different types of articles. Like prose articles, outlines span the entire scope of human knowledge, and if you check my contribs, you'll see that I've worked on a wide range of topics.
Third, there is no consensus to remove the set of outlines from Wikipedia or from the contents system (where it has been for years under one name or another). On the contrary, there is consensus established on this talk page to retain the link to the list of outlines, which is also a subpage of this portal. By repeatedly removing it, you are defying consensus, and are placing your editing status at risk.
The Transhumanist 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
All of your points are incorrect. And you say consensus has been establish here - that is also false. However, I would love for you to demonstrate consensus by contributing to the RfC you have been told to hold. Otherwise, outlines have to go - unless you will accept one of the compromise wordings? Verbal chat 18:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Your removal of the link was opposed by multiple editors. See #Oppose removal of Outline of Knowledge link from this portal's nav bar.
I don't think labeling them as "historical" is at all accurate - Verbal: as the primary disputant, it's really not appropriate for you to decide this at all. Call them "disputed", without the long "footnote", if we have to have something.
I'd prefer having nothing added though, as only a few editors "dispute" them, in contrast to the many editors who've built and linked to them. They were started long before any of us were even editing....
I wish you both would be more open-minded to outside opinions, and I wish you both would contribute more actively to the RfC, and with an eye towards compromise. Move Forward, not back. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I support Quiddity's preference to leave the tags and the procedural notice "footnotes" out. The Transhumanist 21:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
TT has withdrawn support for the RfC (liking it to Nazi's and shooting himself) and we've been waiting for a year now. A reasonable amount of time has passed without consensus for support being establish, which is what is demanded by policy and guidelines, and was demanded a year ago by the community. They should be simply removed as there is no community support. Verbal chat 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken, I haven't withdrawn support. I've never supported it in the first place! Though I have participated there, and will continue doing so as I stated. At the moment though, I'm preoccupied in resolving a problem with link-blanking and menu tagging.
Keep in mind that no support is required for pages to exist on Wikipedia - on the contrary, support must be garnered to remove them. That's what WP:AfD is for. Why don't you nominate them all for deletion at AfD? We already know the reason: because it will not succeed - it will have too much exposure. But de-developing the outline subsystem behind the scenes as you have been doing will also eventually fail, because awareness of your inappropriate methods will grow naturally over time.
The Transhumanist 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


"The community", is a weaselword, as you know. [Sorry, that was not a constructive way to begin this. Mistakes are to learn with. Struck out at 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
A few editors have expressed outrage over the BasicTopicsOutlineLists (due to either naming, or scope, or namespace). Other editors, who are also a part of "the community", some of whom are even admins, do in fact support these pages (including their current naming, and scope, and namespace).
TT doesn't speak for all the editors who support these pages, and you can't speak for all the editors who oppose these pages.
I have serious concerns about some of these pages, but I support the project in general, in the same way that I used to appreciate my html reference card. I still believe the Outline of Google should be deleted, but "the community" disagreed at AfD.
I most strongly wish that you would cease oversimplifying matters, as then we could have practical and useful discussions. (eg About what the Outline of Buddhism should be classified as. It's clearly useful, but it's not concise or basic anymore.). Please! Stop oversimplifying! -- Quiddity (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is getting really annoying - adding 'disputed' or 'no consensus' tags looks petty, they are not 'NECESSARY' as recent edit summaries have stated - click on outlines and the first paragraph describes there status. Please think about how this looks to a reader. This really is taking too much time. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's detracting from the overall professional appearance of such an important high-level page. It's common knowledge that consensus discussions happen on talk pages, they don't need to be advertised in silly inline tags next to the text. -- Ϫ 14:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Add myself and TT to this list.
Although I'm willing to accept Arthur Rubin's version (the "compromise") if it will stop Verbal and TT from slow-motion editwarring. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity is correct that I agree that there should be no tags in the menus. They are crass advertising, unneeded, and annoying. The Transhumanist 23:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, since some editors aren't happy with the proper noun idea, maybe we should take a step back to view the whole picture to see if it looks right. Here's a list of the portal's subpages' titles:



I didn't notice this before, but there are 3 naming conventions instead of just one. "Outline of knowledge" sticks out like a sore thumb; the proper noun "Outline of Knowledge" would stick out even worse. The "Lists of" and "List of" entries, and "Categorical index" (of categories) look like oddballs too. These four don't match the rest. What if we clean it up? Here's what the subpages look like when they all match, using the least wordy naming convention:



What do you think?

The Transhumanist 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree, (leaving the appropriateness and placement of "Outlines" pointers and articles to another thread, and wondering where the Index of ''subject'' articles went to). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Portal:Contents/Index page is a draft. It hasn't been linked to from anywhere yet, because it's not ready. It should probably be renamed to Portal:Contents/Indexes, to match the rest. The Transhumanist 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That all seems logical and clear to me. I agree, barring unforeseen problems.
Except, I would hesitantly suggest "Quick Index" should be "A-Z Index", as that is what the page header names itself, and that is how the navbars refer to it. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I prefer the A-Z name too. Its having a name we never use is...
...useless.
The Transhumanist 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on Quiddity's observation/comment above, I amend my proposal to this:

The Transhumanist 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. Support. Looks nice and neat. -- Ϫ 14:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support (In case my support for a previous version of this proposal is not considered.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support as above. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages were moved today. Thanks all. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add sq:Portal:Përmbajtja

ADD sq:Portal:Përmbajtja.--Tufche 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fascinating language might I add. -- œ™ 14:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing

In this page are missing,Categoria:Fundamental. KnuxD (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. -- œ™ 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to restore Outlines entry and keep "Outlines" on this portal's menu templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to restore the outline entry to this portal, and keep the "Outlines" links on this portal's header and footer templates.

The outline entry has been removed from this page during an edit war and unfortunately was missing from the page when it was protected. The entry described and linked to one of the subpages of this portal, also a major branch of Wikipedia's navigation system including over 500 outlines full of topic links. The whole set of outlines has between 30,000 to 50,000 links to Wikipedia articles. The list of outlines warrants an entry and link on this contents page.

The entry was located directly below the link for "Overviews", and looked like this:

  • Outlines—expanding on the overview above, this set of outlines (structured lists) shows the structure of knowledge and its various branches, and serves as a table of contents for those subjects and their coverage on Wikipedia.

I propose that we add that entry back in.

Also affected by the edit war were the "Outlines" links on the nav menu at the top of this portal's pages, and on its footer. See:

The links are currently locked in place by page protection, but before the templates were protected a particular editor made the "Outlines" links disappear every couple of days or so.

Therefore, I also ask that these links be kept in place and that the person who has been removing them be required to stop doing so.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Support - as proposer. The Transhumanist 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion in header and footer templates as overkill, support inclusion in page, but at the bottom of the section "other topic lists", if outlines in general get consensus at an RfC. I am not convinced that we should have outlines, and I don't believe that their overall quality is sufficiently high to give them the second spot here and a place in the header and footer. Fram (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Outlines exist. There are over 500 of them in article space, presenting tens of thousands of topic links in a well organized manner. They have a very high utility in helping users browse subjects and explore their subtopics. The list of them is a subpage of this portal, and a link to it needs to be included here and on this portal's menus so that people can explore and edit the outlines. Orphanizing the list of outlines would be doing Wikipedia's readers a disservice. Providing them with another way to find subjects is a good thing. The Transhumanist 10:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Only if this "other way to find subjects" is a good way of doing this. Not everyone agrees on this. Looking at Outline of philosophy, I notice that it starts with an ugly banner, unlike any other Wikipedia article I'm aware of. Why? Ah, because it's not really an article, it's a bunch of templates put together on a page. This page looks like a Project page, not a Wikipedia article, and is in its current form in the wrong namespace. Drop-down boxes are also not what one expects in Wikipedia. articles. Looking at a random second outline, Outline of sports, I notice that it has been vandalized on August 18[1], which wasn't reverted until now. Apart from that, this is smply a list of sports and should be kept at that title. By the way, the first line, "sports can be done ... in space"? Technically, of course, and in SF novels, but not really realistic at the moment... A thrid outline, Outline of Africa, again has the overuse of templates in the main text, and has some very strange subheadings, like "West Africa 40px". The History of Africa by year and month also shows how well this is maintained... A fourth one, Outline of functional analysis is correctly removed to the "list" title, which probably many outlines should have... Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The Outline of philosophy banner templates are an idiosyncrasy of that particular topic. The editor who added them there, placed them at all the locations that the banner lists. You'd have to talk to him (or the WikiProject Philosophy) about that. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The ugly banner is an anomaly but even so, it doesn't adversely affect the navigability of the page - it actually adds navigability. The edit on the sports outline wasn't vandalism - pompon is the name of a sport (cheerleading squad competition). The editor removed his subheading in the very next edit, leaving only the sport name. Fram, you should apologize to the editor whom you falsely accused in this public forum. Also, you didn't mention any problems concerning templates. Do they adversely affect navigation, and if so, please explain how. You didn't expect to see them, but what difference did that make? Please clarify. And the typos, are an argument against the pages how? They're easily cleaned up and don't affect the usefulness of the page. You are pointing out minor problems, and this is a useful thing. But minor problems don't affect the utility of these pages or their content. By the way, please look over more outlines, and I'll be happy to clean up any problems that you find. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; concur with Fram as to position in this template (and with Verbal in regard the degree of consensus for inclusion); weak support for inclusion in the header/footer templates if included in the main template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • What did you mean by "this template"? What did you mean by "main template? The Transhumanist 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • To rephrase, it clearly should not appear in the "overviews" section of the Portal without a clear consensus for its proper placement, which has never occurred in a proper venue. It might appear in "other lists", but it still should have a tag stating that the placement is disputed. It might belong at the end of the header and footer templates (not in template space, but they are still templates.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Being the talk page for the page being discussed, this is the proper forum. 08:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support So long as the pages exist on Wikipedia (and I am not convinced of that; I think that perhaps they should have their own separate namespace), I think they should be treated as any other navigation tool. Therefore, adding this as a singular line anywhere on this page (perhaps as a separate section, perhaps in "Other topic lists") would be a good idea. NW (Talk) 18:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support listing the outlines further down this main content portal (perhaps in "Other topic lists" section, per NW). There was strong opposition to moving these types of pages out of mainspace (by all but 2 editors) at the recent RfC of Inclusion criteria for Lists. See particularly llywrch's comment: "Year articles aren't explicitly lists, but they are composed of lists of events, births & deaths, & some Wikipedians have wanted to delete them because they had no other content & likely would never contain anything more than these three lists & some nav boxes." Hence I'm still convinced that outlines are in the same grey-area that "lists of lists" and "year articles" and other "navigational pages" are in. If anyone decides to examine that issue comprehensively, then I'll support that discussion, but deciding on "outlines" separately doesn't seem like a positive direction to move in. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - They are a sub-part of this portal, some don't like them, and some want them deleted. But until they are deleted, they do exist, they are part of this portal's scope and they should be listed - Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Since outlines are used for navigation and RfC have accepted them, they should be listed. See top of the content page which states Links to all of Wikipedia's main contents pages are presented below, and they in turn link to the more specific pages. Outlines should be treated as a content page. --Stefan talk 01:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is strange that a few editors have been demanding that outline supporters post an RfC to establish consensus for outlines, that is, approval for the existence of outlines. But outlines don't need to establish consensus, because they are the status quo. They already exist. It would require a new consensus to delete them, move them, rename them, redesign them, etc., due to Wikipedia's rules on deletions, mass moves, mass edits, etc. You can't just move or rename 500 outlines without a major outcry and subsequent admin intervention (i.e., user block). The rules require that some type of proposal be presented or discussed and a consensus be reached before performing the deletion, mass move, etc. Basically, an AfD or RfC. For supporters of outlines to post an AfD, or an RfC for an adverse action (such as renaming them, etc.) that they clearly do not want to happen, would be a violation of WP:POINT. Our hands are tied. Meanwhile, the detractors have been trying to tie their demand for an RfC to their effort to deny access to outlines, but the issue is reduced to its least common denominator, edits, and they won't be able to ignore consensus achieved in access discussions such as this one, since edits to any page are bound by consensus achieved on that page's talk page. The talk page consensus will either allow or disallow particular edits to the page. In this case, the inclusion of an outline entry and corresponding links. That is, the demand for an RfC is invalid and irrelevant, and does nothing but confuse those not familiar with the rules. If they want to move or delete outlines, they'll have to post a proposal at the requisite forum per Wikipedia's well established rules. Such a proposal will be unlikely to succeed, for it will need to be announced on the page or talk page of every article that the proposal affects: all 500 of them. A large number of supporters would be attracted to the discussions, making the proposal a lot of work for nothing. Which is probably why no detractor has bothered. The Transhumanist 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per TT.Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Request to edit protected page: Please revert the page to the last edit by Highfields, per the proposal directly above. The Transhumanist 01:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the broader discussions that have been taking place, but I've made the edit because there does appear to be consensus for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Please reconsider your edit. While there is support to include them, the location suggested by The Transhumanis has much less support. See e.g. the opposes, and supports like "Support listing the outlines further down this main content portal (perhaps in "Other topic lists" section, per NW)". I would suggest moving the outlines entry down to the "other topic lists", where it belongs. Fram (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you keep discussing this and I will be happy to move it if a consensus develops on the best location. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It would have been better if you had noticed that there was no agreement on the location of this entry, and that this should have been clarified instead of just acting upon the "editprotected", but oh well... Fram (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. arrow Reverted. Please discuss the best place for this link. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Fram that near-top-billing isn't reasonable (at least this year), and the prior comments do seem to converge on placing it within the "Other topic lists" section. As long as we can keep the editorializing out of their description, then I'll be contented. I'd tentatively suggest using this:

...

  • Lists—a selective collection of article lists, arranged by subject.
  • Category:Lists—a list of lists in the category system, arranged alphabetically.
  • Outlines—a structured list of topics associated with a certain broader subject.

Two of the broadest...

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the other links section - Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, would they not be better in the overviews section? After all, that is really what they are meant to be. NW (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
True, they are overviews, and the proposal was to restore them to the Overviews section. They should be placed in the section that best describes them, and "Overviews" does so a lot better than "Other lists". The Transhumanist 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That was your proposal, yes, but that part if it didn't really have consensus. Currently, the overviews are two pages which have a total overview of our content, linking directly to our pages on those main subjects. The rest, more detailed pages, are listed in other sections. The main outlines page is not a listof links to our main articles, but a list of links to other outlines, just like the "lists" page is a link to other lists, not to pages. Placing those together makes perfect sense. Fram (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion it didn't have consensus? Please explain your reasoning process on this. Looking at the above discussion, I see 4 for the proposal, and 4 for placing it in "other". There is no consensus for changing it from the Overviews section to the Others section. Ties go to the existing status quo - and at the time of the proposal, they had been last residing in "Overviews". The Transhumanist 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Consensus isn't a number count, as you well know.
  2. Besides which, your counting is flawed: You supported including them in the "Overviews section", and Greg Bard supported "per TT". Everybody else either specified "further down" or related wording, or expressed no preference.
  3. You're just aggravating everyone by beating this wounded horse. If you want the outlines to be listed higher up here, and to be thought of as core components of our navigational structure, then improve the quality of the damned pages so that people have less reason to disagree. It's not rocket science. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The accusatory and insulting rhetoric is uncalled for. This is a polite discussion, and you seem to be attempting to make it less so. If you can't discuss the issue cordially, please excuse yourself from the conversation.
Getting back to the point at issue (consensus), support, without explicitly expressing preference, supports placement inherent in the proposal, which proposed a very specific action.
As for improving the pages, they need greater exposure to attract the editors needed to make the improvements. (Which comes first, the finished-quality product, or the editors? The editors, of course, because you can't produce a finished quality product without them). Expecting a single editor to improve this set of pages to finished quality is unreasonable. Most of the complaints have been concerning aesthetics, which has little to do with navigation. And that's the main reason for giving the outlines better placement: their utility - they assist in browsing subjects quite well.
The Transhumanist 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. The top "Overviews" section contains articles. The "Other topic lists" subsection contains lists. Outlines are structured lists.
  2. Verging on cart before the horse. We don't put poor-quality stubs in any section on the Main Page. Outlines can recruit editors through wikiprojects and happenstance, just like every other project does. And it's not a "single editor", there are dozens of editors working on various outlines.
  3. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor to make this discussion less polite. I'm trying to stop you from Wikilawyering over a 3cm high placement-quibble, and thereby irritating the various editors who have already agreed to a 'compromise' of sorts. The Outlines are now included in the Portal page, and the header/footer templates. Let it go.
  4. The Outline of British Columbia and Outline of forensics are on my watchlist, and are looking a lot better after your recent cleanup work. It is appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have closed this discussion because it's stalled for a month. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About three years ago, I started working on a Topics-based contents pages project. My basic objective was to design and implement a set of complementary contents pages that can use the same underlying sections. One group would include individual pages with all of the sections related to a type of page, like Overviews, while the other group would have pages with all of the sections about a topic, like Culture and the arts. The underlying structure of this project has been in place almost from the start. Complementary page layout templates for each group - Portal:Contents/Types layout and Portal:Contents/Topics layout - plus the contents of each section moved to subpages allow for transclusion to and editing from either template group. Here's an example of the same underlying section showing on the two corresponding pages: Overviews - Culture and the Arts and Culture and the Arts - Overviews. While both groups of contents pages are fully functional, only the pages by type are included in the contents navigational headers and footers.

I recently updated the topical contents page group to reflect the changes since I last worked on this project. Here's a summary of what I found. The type-oriented group includes six pages with topical sections: Overviews · Portals · Lists · Outlines · Glossaries · Categories. The topical group includes 12 pages with type-oriented sections: Reference · Culture · Geography · Health · History · Mathematics · Nature · People · Philosophy · Religion · Society · Technology. This means that up to 72 contents sections could be included in either of these contents page groups. As it turns out, 71 of these 72 possible sections actually do contain links to content. The only empty section to date is Glossaries about People and self.

My recommendation is to do the following:

As a demonstration of the concept and to facilitate discussion, I will be bold and do the following:

I look forward to the discussion on how we best can reach consensus on this proposal. Regards, RichardF (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing. The topics-based pages contain too much redundancy. The redundancy on the geography page is especially strong. I believe the topics pages will fuel the battle between lists and categories, between lists and outlines, between lists and indexes once the index list is added, and between outlines and portals. Each subsystem needs to be allowed to develop independently of the others, for leap-frogging to occur. Outlines especially have the potential to develop into a very robust system, including software enhancements. Presenting such close comparison will only invite the all-or-nothing axe upon one or more of these subsystems. But more than anything, it is just confusing - which is the same reason it didn't go live 3 years ago. I'm reverting. The Transhumanist 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the page was reverted, here is a link to Portal:Contents with the aded topical contents page navigation links and corresponding revised narrative -- RichardF (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Page view stats

Wikipedia contents page views trial, February 2011, for discussion at Portal talk:Contents. Data found at Wikipedia article traffic statistics.
2011 Views FEB 1-14 FEB 1 FEB 7 FEB 14
Contents 424,700 31,700 31,900 41,300
Featured content 277,567 19,900 20,100 30,600
Glossaries 5,216 381 390 433
Lists 4,576 364 372 343
Outlines 2,778 187 224 186
Overview 2,848 197 228 249
Portals 92,510 7,000 7,200 6,800
A-Z index 11,714 887 971 891
Categories 5,340 517 427 357
Lower use types  32,472 2,533 2,612 2,459
All types 402,549 29,433 29,912 39,859
Reference 13,762 1,100 1,100 1,000
Culture 7,258 557 577 568
Geography 7,127 520 494 562
Health 8,127 605 602 617
History 8,632 614 694 637
Mathematics 5,013 383 430 372
Nature 4,405 346 352 317
People 9,606 675 728 657
Philosophy 3,819 287 316 310
Religion 4,033 330 323 283
Society 2,934 188 221 211
Technology 6,210 474 489 435
All topics 80,926 6,079 6,326 5,969
Types & Topics 483,475 35,512 36,238 45,828
Total 908,175 67,212 68,138 87,128

Here's a set of Wikipedia article traffic statistics for the proposed header bar contents pages. In about half a day since posting the topical contents page links on the navigation bar, they already are over 2,500 page views today. These individual page views range from over 100 to over 400. I'll track these views at least through February. -- RichardF (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

These stats show the effects of link placement. "Contents" and "Featured content" are on the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia. The portals link is on the Main Page, and is featured multiple times in a nav-bar at the top of most portal pages. When subjects are displayed across a navbar, readers tend to blast across the navbar, increasing the page count for the pages linked to - thus the topics pages feed each other with cursory page views. When "Overview" was moved further up the page toward the top of Portal:Contents, it's traffic went up. Since Portal:Contents is in the top 100 pages for traffic on Wikipedia, anything listed at the top of it will get more hits by placing it there. I do believe the topics-based pages that congregate all the contents page types should not be placed there, because they are just too confusing. See the discussion thread above. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The topical contents page links were removed from the contents pages header bar before the completion of the second day of testing, January 29, 2011. Nevertheless, as indicated in the updated table and corresponding chart, the number of views on these pages increased substantially. Clearly, when given the opportunity, Wikipedia users choose to view contents pages organized by topic. In addition, when give a side-by-side choice, they often viewed topical contents pages at a rate higher than they viewed the non-high profile type-oriented contents pages. RichardF (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The table and chart now cover the Wikipedia contents page views February 2011 trial period. -- RichardF (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show what you've claimed. What it shows is that readers tend to click more on links that are placed at the top of a page. Any links you place up there will get more traffic. The question is, what links should be placed up there? That question cannot be answered by page view counts - especially in a nav bar where readers may simply be blasting across the nav bar for a quick look-see. The Transhumanist 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of trial period

Comment: I agree with the proposal by RichardF (talk · contribs), I think it is a great idea. However, we should gain a greater consensus from more individuals than simply the two quibbling above. :P Perhaps blast a notice out to relevant talk pages of WikiProjects, and parties can in the meanwhile agree to a two week trial period? Surely the world will not end if we implement a two week trial period? Thank you for your time and consideration, -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've posted invitations at several community talk pages, but so far, not much interest in joining the discussion has been shown. Perhaps Cirt (talk · contribs) can be more persuasive.  :-) At this point, I believe a third party should reinstate the reversions to Portal:Contents, Portal:Contents/Types layout and Template:Contents pages (footer box). -- RichardF (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yay
  1. Support 2 week trial period as proposed by Cirt. -- Ϫ 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support trial period through February 14 - Wikipedia time. With three supports, I'm going to reinstate the links. -- RichardF (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support - lets try it out see what we get .Moxy (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support - Seems reasonable to me I don't see any reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh? Comments
  1. Oops - I was expecting that selecting a top row (say, Categories), then the type of the selection displayed on the second row (say, Nature) would be of type Category:Nature. Likewise, if Outlines were selected on the top row, then the analog would be Outline of Nature on the second row, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    1. When I go to a "contents" page, I expect it to be about the subject matter - the topics covered. Wikipedia's contents pages traditionally have been about organizing the material with similar characteristics and formats. This setup, IMHO, has been the fundamental disconnect from traditional subject matter classification systems. I hope the two week trial period offers an objective measure of how Wikipedia users actually prefer to browse summaries of its contents. In any event, giving Wikipedia users meaningful choices about how they access the encyclopedia's content is a good thing. I also think the expanded labels and links on the top navigation bar help address any initial confusion about each line. -- RichardF (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, it doesn't show preference or meaningful choices. Any links you place at the top of high-traffic pages such as Portal:Contents will get a lot of hits just out of curiosity. If people used these pages over and over, then we could expect that the number of hits would continually rise rather than remain constant. They aren't rising, which indicates they are probably getting looky-loo traffic and not repeat users. Note that the hits for the other links up there haven't changed appreciably over time either. Yet, the pages displayed on these nav pages in total get far more traffic than these nav pages do, which means the vast majority of traffic to the pages listed (outlines, etc.) is coming to them via other routes.
     
    These nav pages aren't attracting users back to them, which strongly suggests that they need a redesign. How can we make them more useful so that users actually return to use them? I think Ancheta is right to make suggestions on a new approach. Because we are obviously missing something. The traffic just keeps passing by. I think we should stop some passers-by and ask them what their impression of these pages are and what they think they are for. We might be surprised. The Transhumanist    03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. For some reason, we now have Portal:Contents/Overviews and Portal:Contents/Overview, both of which are linked to on various pages and templates. I assume some merging and/or cleanup is in order. -- RichardF (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Once again, The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is interfering with the Contents test.
    The test had nothing to do with the Overview/Overviews links, which is what I was working on. I was unaware that all work on the entire contents system was supposed to stop because of the test. Please point out where the proposal specified that. And quit falsely accusing people. The Transhumanist    03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted these edits to allow the test to continue as is. RichardF (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Nay

Discussion of main proposal

Now that the trail period is completed, the discussion can return to the merits of the main proposal, which is repeated below:

  • Yay
  1. Support - Clearly, Wikipedia users are interested in browsing the encyclopedia's contents by topic. During the two week trial period, the pages proposed for additions to the templates were viewed over 80,000 times. The overall encyclopedia contents navigation system should support this interest by including the proposed pages in the high-level contents navigation templates. -- RichardF (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support - Seems like a great idea that already has a good deal of support for continued implementation. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support - Sounds like a good idea to me. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support. Sure, I don't see why not. I'm not really understanding TT's original opposition though.. -- Ϫ 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh? Comments
  1. I have blocked the account which added a gratuitous word on the 1st line of the Contents navbar, and have removed the noise word. Please let me know if you need additional help. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Nay
  1. Oppose - The bloated nav bar is cumbersome and confusing. It is an example of link cruft. I think we should keep it simple. The Transhumanist    03:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stalled discussion

So, what the heck does it take to unstall a discussion around here? For example, how about participating in it rather than closing it and declaring it stalled? -- RichardF (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I opposed the above proposal, I'm satisfied with the results. The page seems to keeping up with developments in the contents subsystems, by providing links. The top level of the contents system remains fairly static over time, and so there's not much we can do to improve this page - everything relevant is included. Is there something missing?
By the way, for those who are interested, issues about how to improve the overall contents system are within the scope of the Contents WikiProject. The Transhumanist 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we go graphical?

Maybe we could apply information visualization. That is, in addition to the list in each section, perhaps we could provide a diagram presenting the subsystem names for that section. We could use one of the following, for example:

  • Radial tree - with "contents" in the middle and lines spoking out in all directions to each of the subsystem's names. Sort of like WP:UPDC but with lines and no icons.
  • Concept map showing the relationships between the subsystems
  • Tree structure diagram, with lines and boxes.
  • Mind map for the whole page.

Anybody any good with diagrams? The Transhumanist 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that the simpler the diagram, the better. Our minds cannot handle more than the magical number seven (plus or minus two) independent things (in the sense of a free variable). It is related to the fact that no juggler has ever juggled more than six balls in the air at one time (see Ronald Graham-- juggler/mathematician). If you are looking for graphics, we need thumbnails of said graphics (i.e., the big picture) inset into any complex graphic diagram. It will require an education program to get the idea across for any of these types of diagrams. Equations serve very well to compress information, and all equations do is serve as a barrier for most people. On the other hand, animations can convey concepts pretty well if they are allied with standardized words for those concepts. And multiple views (i.e., index/outline/summary sentence) all at one page -- sounds like a portal might be the ticket here. However portals are high maintenance objects in Wikipedia, much more so than an article itself. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That said, if we can agree on a few integrating ideas, perhaps we might concentrate on invigorating those few pages. There are several things that might be tried, such as a touchstone (ala Archimedes or D'Alembert or DNA or science or air) that manage to bring in many concepts to serve as a springboard to the rest of the articles in the encyclopedia. Another possibility might be use an equation as an icon, add a summary sentence, with sidebars to link to the rest of the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for main section title adjustment

I propose that we adjust one of the section titles of the contents system for completeness and consistency....

As you know, there are 4 major classifications of sciences: Natural sciences, Social sciences, Formal sciences, and Applied sciences. "Formal sciences" is missing from the main subjects of the contents system. This is a big oversight.

Besides "General reference", each of the remaining main section titles, except for one, include a parent subject and a subtopic of the parent. Arts is a subtopic of culture, places are a focus of geography, fitness is an aspect of health, events have happened throughout history, physical sciences are a subset of the natural sciences, etc.

The exception is Mathematics and logic. Neither of these fields is a subclass or subtopic of the other, instead, they are both distinct formal sciences. Formal sciences is the parent subject, but it is missing from the title.

Therefore, the proposal is to replace "Mathematics and logic" with "Formal sciences and mathematics".

The new set of titles would look like this:

General reference
Culture and the arts
Formal sciences and mathematics
Geography and places

   Health and fitness
    History and events
Natural and physical sciences
   People and self

   Philosophy and thinking
Religion and belief systems
Society and social sciences
Technology and applied sciences

It's a small change, but it would establish formal sciences to its logical placement within the contents system's structure.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a big problem with this proposal: it elevates 'Formal sciences' which is the path to ossification. A student reader needs to be aware that 'before' a science becomes formal, there is an informal stage, where concepts are clarified. The informal stage cannot be skipped during the learning process, either, because that is the stage at which weaknesses are clarified. Granted, this takes intellectual honesty on the part of the student ("do I understand this? If that were true, then ..."). The 'hmmm' stage has to be acknowledged, and inventive people are frequently valuable just at this stage. Otherwise, inventive minds will simply turn away, whereas copycats will merely propagate unnecessary errors in the incipient concept, which creates huge unnecessary silos. In any event, it hardens thinking, which is the exact opposite of a mathematical mind which is careful, flexible, gentle, (i.e., subtle) and open, yet still capable of using machinery: for example, John Tukey, who invented the fast fourier transform after hearing one lecture on the Fourier transform. See: intuitionistic mathematics --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Some noted mathematicians such as Hilbert had a formalist POV, which was demolished in the 20th c.
I am simply saying that mathematics is not only formal. This is well acknowledged in the logic articles. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I see, mathematics is a formal science and something else. What else is mathematics besides being a formal science? (I.e., where else in the navigation system does mathematics belong?) By the way, the main issue here is that "Formal sciences" is missing. As one of the major branches of science, shouldn't it be one of the main sections? Where in the contents system should we place "formal sciences"? The Transhumanist 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I can share something my teacher, Richard Feynman said to us: "Mathematics is not real, but it feels real. Where is this place?". The best location I can be comfortable with right now is a virtual location under Technology and applied science, under Virtual reality. So how about "Virtual science: mathematics and logic", under its own heading, alphabetized after Technology and applied science. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

General reference
Culture and the arts
Geography and places
  Health and fitness

    History and events
Natural and physical sciences
   People and self
   Philosophy and thinking

Religion and belief systems
Society and social sciences
Technology and applied sciences
Virtual sciences: mathematics and logic

We don't have an article or category for "virtual sciences". The only thing I could find on Google were companies by that name. The term appears to be a neologism or less-than-commonly-used name for these sciences. There is a specific classification called "Formal sciences" that isn't placed in the Portal:Contents system yet. There is a great deal about them on the Web, and Wikipedia has Category:Formal sciences. Where should "Formal sciences" be placed? The Transhumanist 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely against "virtual sciences", which in addition to being neologistic appears to be POV. The original proposal is OK with me, but I think even better would be to combine the "mathematics and logic" and "natural and physical sciences" titles into a single "mathematics and natural science" title. Physical sciences are ipso facto natural sciences, so nothing is lost there, and the part of logic that belongs with mathematics is mathematical logic which is really mathematics. Philosophical logic should go under a different title, probably the "Philosophy and thinking" one. --Trovatore (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The phrase as you know, there are 4 major classifications of sciences isn't a good starting point for discussion. As it happens, I don't know such a thing, and I'm sure a lot of other people don't either. The page Branches of science does not actually give a source for a four-fold classification. I'm not convinced that a widely accepted classification of the sciences exists. And there certainly isn't consensus as to whether or not mathematics is a science (formal or otherwise); there are people who view it as closer to an art form, or as a discipline which doesn't fit inside any other category. Jowa fan (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We should use what is common outside of Wikipedia in classification not start doing our own thing. There may be some deviations but this looks like it has no justification from the real world outside. That is how titles of articles are mainly decided, we need things to be obvious easily found and accessible. Hiding computer science and mathematics under virtual or formal science is nonsense when they are so important in today's world. How many children would ever think of looking up something under these headings? Dmcq (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another way of doing things would be to use the reference desk categories plus medicine which it avoids. That way people would know where to ask if they don't get an answer. The reference desk probably has some talk about revised categories too. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Mathematics isn't any kind of science. There's no such thing as a "mathematical experiment"; even people who use that term do not intend for the word "experiment" to mean what it does in, say, physics or biology. See for example Skewes' number, which is known to exist, but is known to be so large that we cannot currently find it; if mathematics relied on the results of experiments, then we would have to conclude that Skewes' number did not exist. The scientific method has no place in mathematical reasoning. The foundation of mathematics is logic and proof, and the practice of mathematics is art. Anyone who mistakes it for science should be ignored. Ozob (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't see any value in the change and I disagree on the division of science and the placement of fields within it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose any use of the term "formal science" here. Yes, technically mathematics, logic, statistics etc. are formal sciences. But the term causes confusion, is needlessly controversial, and is not a term that the man on the Clapham omnibus would understand without explanation. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support Today's heading "mathematics and logic" is objectionable because of the extreme foundationalism and structuralism of the article mathematics, which discounts history and relations to science/engineering. The term "formal sciences" is conventional for the cluster of logic, mathematics, and mathematical disciplines without empirical claims.

Alternative: I would propose Mathematical and logical disciplines, which avoids the erroneous term "sciences".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment It's just false to say that mathematics does not make empirical claims. It most decidedly does make empirical claims. Granted, these are not so much in the day-to-day practice of mathematics as they are part of the content of the axioms, if you want to think in axiomatic terms, but that's true of the day-to-day practice of, say, physics as well. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What complete nonsense. If you are talking about the content of the axioms, you are no longer talking about mathematics. Please take a look at atomic sentence so as to learn about the relationship of subject matter, to the logic which makes sense of the the subject matter. Also shockingly, you compare to physics. The content of an axiom of physics is also no longer talking about physics. The axiom itself however, is a product of empirical observation. Math and logic are not empirical insofar as organizing Wikipedia's categories are concerned. Perhaps there are some philosophers of mathematics who claim it is, and have a very abstruse argument therefore, however, no one editing Wikipedia is at that level of understanding so as to reject or adhere to that view intelligently. So we should go with the simplified, prevailing view that math and logic are not empirical. Furthermore, logic and math aren't sciences, nor are they arts OR they are both sciences AND arts. There is no reasonable claim that either of them are one to the exclusion of the other. Logic and math are both beyond either art or science because they are fields that equally apply to the whole of science and the whole of art (i.e. every single scientist and every single scientific claim adheres to reason, also every single artist and every work of art adheres to some system of reason). Therefore all of mathematics and all of science are more properly categorized as specialized subfields of logic. Greg Bard (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether mathematics has empirical content is a controversial point, and the category structure should certainly not assume that it does. But it should also not assume that it doesn't. As far as the titles go, I specifically argued for Mathematics and natural science, which does not imply in any way that mathematics is natural science, but simply reflects the prevailing reality that these subjects are often studied and presented together and by the same people. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's still the placement issue. There's a Portal:Social sciences, and it's only a matter of time before we have Portal:Formal sciences, and maybe perhaps an Outline of formal sciences. And "Formal sciences" is missing from Portal:Contents/Overviews. The question remains: "WHERE DOES "FORMAL SCIENCES" GO?!"   The Transhumanist 01:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to go anywhere? It seems to be a slightly unusual way of categorizing things, not as extreme as virtual sciences, but not as standard as something like "mathematics and natural sciences" at a high level, broken up in turn into "natural sciences" and just "mathematics". As I argue above there is no need for "mathematics and logic", because mathematical logic already is mathematics, and philosophical logic is a separate category that should not go under M&NS. The only other big thing that one might want to include in "formal sciences" is computer science, but that doesn't seem to be part of the proposal as I understand it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the question. Let me rephrase it: when portal "Formal sciences" gets created, where will it be listed on Portal:Contents/Portals? Your answer above sounds as if this portal wouldn't be listed at all, as if being barred from the portals list. Is that what you meant? Disallow it from being listed on the portals list? That sounds like POV or censorship. All other portals are listed, so why wouldn't this one be? The Transhumanist 02:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why there should be a formal-sciences portal, if all of its proposed contents are covered by other portals. --Trovatore (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. "Formal science isn't a very important category insofar as organizing things is concerned. As far as the name of the category these guys are trying to formulate, I would recommend Deductive sciences. That covers math and logic. That was what Tarski would call it.Greg Bard (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's POV from two sides: It assumes math is purely deductive, which I contest, and that it's a science, which others contest. --Trovatore (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Formal science as far as I can work out is about dividing computer science from computing and probability from statistics and studies about linguistics from languages and stick the first three into one box. The box is already there and it is called mathematics. There is no need for more than the current empirical split between pure and applied sciences, why have formal, pure and applied? Do you really want to try splitting Newtons laws of motion which is pure science from the maths used for Newtons laws of motion which by this would be the formal science? Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Technically, mathematics and science are completely different. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Mathematics is not a science. Support status quo.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename sidebar link - proposal

See discussion about renaming the link to this page (not the page itself) in the sidebar, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change Contents link in Sidebar. –Quiddity (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer header

Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer, I would like to propose adding a Disclaimer header to the top of this page. Here is what the header looks like:

The purpose would be to increase awareness of Wikipedia's limitations, without adding warnings to the top of every page. --agr (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding a publisher's footer to the bottom of the page would be a nice touch. Across the Web, disclaimers and other administrative links are typically placed at the bottom of webpages, in a page's footer, so as not to clutter or distract. We've spent considerable effort to keep the top of this page uncluttered, so that the reader sees as much of the content of the page as possible from the instant he arrives here. Most importantly, adding headers would distract from the purpose of this page, drawing readers away, and therefore it would be inappropriate to place headers at the top.
A footer, which included a link to How to participate in Wikipedia, Wikipedia copyrights, and disclaimers, would be very helpful. I hope this helps. The Transhumanist 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New sections

As there currently are sections of this portal dedicated to 'Outline of...', 'Index of...', 'List of' etc..., should we expand these to include contents pages for 'History of...' and 'Timeline of...' articles as well? Mschamberlain (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Click on "History" in the subject menu at the top of the page. The body of the Contents page covers Wikipedia's general navigation systems, the scope of which is all knowledge (the entire encyclopedia). To get to the branches of knowledge, click on any of the nav systems. Or use the subject menu at the top of the page (which will lead you to a treatment of the subject by all the major nav systems). The Transhumanist 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The navbar and mobile devices

This design does not scale to mobile screens. Any thoughts around that? Jdlrobson (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I asume you mean the buttons wrap? They do so on desktop as well. I do consider using buttons (styling) a kludge. I'd prefer a simple horizontal list (with minimal styling). The problem will always be: you can never keep everything on a single line, so a gracefull wrap is needed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. What about stacking them vertically with some media query magic? Jdlrobson (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)`

Perzonally I think these would make more sense as CSS drop downs Jdlrobson (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Contents link in the sidebar (displayed on all pages) links to this page, but there is actually no contents here. Also, the whole styling deviates from all other Portal:Content/ pages. Is this something that needs to be fixed? If not, I'd like to propose (on WP:VPP) that Content link to Portal:Contents/Overviews, or maybe Portal:Contents/Portals instead, because those pages actually list topics, instead of explaining how Contents works. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Adapted from a quote by Shenme: "A 'normal' wiki usually doesn't have a core structure, but Wikipedia has quite a lot of material, and various ways of organizing it, [and so this page became its navigation hub]. Having a link in the sidebar to the contents page helps people discover what organization there is."
While its subpages all have TOC and subject heading styling, this page does not because its subjects are those other systems (among others), rather than the subject classifications of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 13:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Still... if I come here as a first time vistor, and click on 'Contents', I'd expect to see some contents listing. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There are subject links right at the top to: Reference Culture Geography Health History Mathematics Nature People Philosophy Religion Society Technology. There's also {{Contents pages (footer box)}} at the bottom. I'll admit these are not very prominent, but this isn't the One True TOC for Wikipedia; there are multiple ways to organize the encyclopedia's contents, so the bulk of this page is just a list of those listings. Would you like to see a big list of topics and subtopics here instead of a big list of lists of TOCs? -- Beland (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Picking one subsystem above the others would be problematic. Creating yet another overview list would be superfluous. What we have are several vying systems, that together make up a supersystem. To favor one over the others by directing the Contents link to it rather than to this all-encompasing page would be counter productive. This, after all, is the top-level of the all-encompassing navigation system.
By the way, I like the revision. Nice touch. The Transhumanist 11:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

MFD of a subpage

Anyone watching this portal may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Indices -- John of Reading (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevant RFC

As currently worded, the proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals includes the deletion of the contents portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Status report from the Portals WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   03:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on a new layout.

Closing RfC as proposer is indef blocked. 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposer blocked, as sock puppet of an LTA (long-term abuser).    — The Transhumanist   05:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


This is a follow up RfC to this, where I proposed a update to Portal:Contents/Portals. This new RfC is to update all pages within Portal:Contents.

This RfC is very simple. Please detail whether you want to retain the existing layout, or replace it with a new one. JLJ001 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want a new one, please give details of what you want it look like, if you want to make design mockups, then put those in a sandbox and link them. If you like someone else's design, say which one it is. If you think something else on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet looks good, link to that. Explaining why you think something should be used (or omitted) could be beneficial.

After the RfC, (unless there's no change) we will try and build a complete working layout based on the most popular ideas. This will then be put forward in another RfC to allow for people to complain about things that were missed out, before then being implemented.

The working layout will obviously be tested as part of the second RfC to avoid breaking an important section of Wikipedia for 80,000+ readers. There is no hurry on this process.

Voting on this RfC is not required since it's not that sort of RfC.

I will try and advertise this everywhere.
JLJ001 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC) ec 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideas

I have also started work on a new Portal:Contents page at JLJ's number 3. JLJ001 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@JLJ001: I left some comments on your first proposal's talk page regarding button layout and size. — AfroThundr (t•c) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The nub of my reply is that the buttons will eventually float, center, and change size dynamically, but I need template styles for that. JLJ001 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Just a note that in the very unlikely event that a non-autoconfirmed user wants to contribute to this RfC, they are welcome to post on my talk page and I'll transclude their comments into this discussion as proxy. Cesdeva (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how the image divs in draft JLJ#2 look when using a mobile. They form a neat grid. Cesdeva (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Would it be simpler for the UI to display on the base page by itself and act as a portal? The rest of the content could be on sub-pages (with a browsebar at the top of each page). I've thrown together a base page example here. Cesdeva (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts right now are to use something like your mockup as the second layer of pages, but with the main Portal:Contents page looking more traditional, without any icons infact, but featuring the search bar, as shown here in JLJ#3. Then a set of pages each with icons like you show and then subpages beyond that following something similar to JLJ#2. JLJ001 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion that was previously archived here has been revived and moved to #Navigation buttons. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

In design 1, I don't like that the topic icons have different heights. This doesn't make it "Wikipedia"-enough (i.e. with regards to the Main Page). wumbolo ^^^ 19:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, they're SVGs, so resizing them is trivial to do. — AfroThundr (t•c) 19:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I am hoping I can get the SVG's redone or replaced with a better set of modern ones, but as AfroThundr shows, they are all supposed to be the same height. JLJ001 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say once the height issue is resolved, I prefer the design of Number 1. This is laptop based - I'll have a look on my mobile when i get a chance Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the mobile view still leaves something to be desired. The buttons don't scale down for smaller screens, and probably won't until we have mw:Extension:TemplateStyles running. — AfroThundr (t•c) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
They definitely won't scale until it's possible get some media queries into the design, mainly because mediawiki expresses all it's image sizes in pixels, and thus the buttons have an absolute size in pixels to contain the fixed size pictures. This is... not ideal. Hopefully the above linked TemplateStyles will allow this to be fixed. JLJ001 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current design?

Unless significant problems can be identified: Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the existing layout. It doesn't need fixing, and this isn't a magic solution. The idea is simply to improve on the layout if possible, taking into account new technologies enabled since the previous design over a decade ago. The most obvious is mobile responsivity, but it appears there are also accessibility issues, it is possible both of these could be fixed with no noticeable visual change for normal desktop users. Any change or improvement to the design purely relies on the community preference. JLJ001 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contents/Archive_6&oldid=925938436"