Talk:Outline of logic

List name

This article is a list, and was originally named a list. In order to move it from "list of" some sort of consensus will have to be established, and there is currently no local consensus here, or general consensus with the community. There isn't even consensus at the disputed/failed WP:OUTLINE page of the controversial outline wikiproject. Until these discussions have completed these pages should remain at the "list" naming. Per WP:LIST, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS etc. Verbal chat 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree wth your characterization. Where is the consensus to move it to "list"? It was doing fine as an outline. There is an organized effort to create outlines and this "list" is obvously in outline format. I find this whole thing puzzling. I thnk we need work consistent with the effort to create outlines. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This "organized effort to create outlines" is itself a very controversial project which many people disagree with. I agree with Verbal, lists should not be moved to "outline" names until there is a site-wide consensus to proceed with WP:OUTLINE (which seems rather unlikely to happen). — Emil J. 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look in the history. This was a list article, and was moved with a mass of other pages without discussion or consensus. All of these moves are being reverted and challenged, to restore the original, and normal, naming convention. Discussion is ongoing at WP:OUTLINE, but there will probably need to be a wider discussion at some point. These moves have met with strong opposition, and a consensus against these moves has been established at the mathematics wikiproject, which covers logic related articles. Verbal chat 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that Index of logic articles still exists, which some list articles redirect to. Verbal chat 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has never been called "List of logic topics". The move to that title was made without a proposal here, and totally without consensus. Verbal is engaging in exactly the type of behavior he has been condemning.

The page has been titled Outline of logic since June of 2009 (4 months) and before that it was called Topic outline of logic since June of 2008. So this page has been called an outline for over a year. There is no consensus to change it from that.

Reverting a title change that old is highly disruptive, but this wasn't a revert - it was a rename to a title that this page has never had before.

Oppose move - for the reasons stated above, I oppose the rename of this outline to "List of logic topics". I agree with Gregbard that this is an outline and its title should continue to reflect this fact. See also WP:COMMONNAME. The Transhumanist 20:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, opposing the move would mean it stays here, so you might want to change that. The move was back to "list of" format. The original name included the word "basic", but I saw no reason why we shouldn't increase the scope of the article. I have no great objection to calling it "basic", but I don't see why we should limit the scope. Each of TTs moves had no consensus, and his entire project is disputed. Those issues should be resolved before any moves take place. List names have community, policy, and guideline support. The outline project doesn't. Verbal chat 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose any further page moves of "List of" and "Outline of" as unacceptable move warring, subject to a consensus demonstrated to WT:OUTLINE or the anticipated RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, no further moves from list to outline should take place, and any moves the other way that had no consensus should be reverted per WP:BRD, etc. Verbal chat 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose current address "list" and request re-instatement of "outline." This oppose is consistent with transhumanist and the others above. Could someone please delete the redirect and move it back please? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the move into list space and reinstate the outline. As per above, please move it back. The article in question is an OUTLINE and is hierarchical. -- penubag  (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This was originally a list, and has been moved back pending some form of consensus as to the "outline project". Also note that there is a consensus at the mathematics project that lists should be called lists, and moves to "outline of" should not take place or should be reversed. I agree that any moving from original names should not take place until the issue is settled. Verbal chat 19:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • But it was not moved back! The list was originally called List of basic topics in logic, which is not the title you "moved it back" to. The original "List of logic topics" was renamed to Index of logic articles. Renaming an outline, that has been part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge for over a year, to a non-matching title just because you don't like outlines is disruptive. The only reasons you have stated so far have to do with process - you haven't made any arguments as to why "List" should be preferred over "Outline". "Outline" is the better descriptor for this article for several reasons:

1. It's part of an established [existing] set of outline articles that constitute Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge (OOK)
2. It shares the same specific format as the outlines in that set
3. The OOK is one of Wikipedia's contents navigation systems, just two clicks from the Main page and Wikipedia's main menu, and it is odd to have some of its member pages named "list" when the rest are titled "outline". It's unprofessional, and confusing.
4. The article is a hierarchical outline, as opposed to merely a list
5. As mentioned previously, it's been called an outline for over a year - changing it now without consensus doesn't make any sense, and was an overly bold move. See WP:MOVE and WP:BRD.

The Transhumanist 00:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• The transhumanist's comments are again highly misleading. This article is not part of "an established set of outline articles". There is no such thing, certainly not any that enjoys consensus. The formatting forced by the outlines project breaks licensing rules and the wikipedia manual of style, and also does not enjoy consensus. The OOK is not one of wikipedia's navigation systems, it is a pet project that (again) does not enjoy consensus, and is not part of WP:LISTS or WP:CTL. "Merely" an outline would be more appropriate, as forcing this article to follow the narrow outline project guides would damage this article and its future development, keeping it as a list enjoys consensus and also allows us to be flexible in how we present the data - in whatever way is best and most appropriate. Lastly, the fact that TT managed to change names without anyone noticing, and without consensus, does not in any way validate his disruptive actions. Verbal chat 12:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• TT's attempts to make his project above policy are very disruptive, and Jake's complicity will need to be a part of the RfC/U. This is abominable. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't misleading at all. There is no policy that states you can't name a list an "Outline", and it is common practice to use type designators in list article titles. The word "Outline" in an article's title refers to the type of list that article is, and not the subject of the list. It is normal for lists to have a list-type designator in their titles or path names - it is common practice; thus we have:
  • Glossary of architecture
  • Index of architecture articles
  • Outline of architecture
  • Timeline of architecture
  • Portal:Architecture/Topics
  • Category:Architecture
  • and Table of years in architecture

Using "outline" as a designator is a natural application of this common practice or development principle. Even the titular phrase "List of" is an article type designator - almost every list on Wikipedia is an article in list format and not an article for which the subject is a list (such as a list published under that title that's out there on sale at a book store for instance). So we also have:

• "List of architecture whatever"
  • List of architecture prizes
  • List of architecture firms
  • List of architecture magazines
• "List of whatever architecture"
  • List of Baroque architecture
  • List of Gothic architecture
  • List of Romanesque architecture

There is no requirement on Wikipedia to get permission to create an article of any name you wish, including articles with new list-type designators in the titles. You just type in the title, click "create this article", and go. That's why Wikipedia has grown so large and is so innovative. If someone doesn't like a title, that's what WP:AfD, or the article's talk page, or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) are for.

And since this outline article matches the nature of the other articles in the "Outline of" set so well, it makes perfect sense to include it in that set with a matching name. The Transhumanist 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore "lists" name. No consensus to allow a private project to trump policy. This edit war needs to stop and TT, his accomplices, and now Jake, need to be stopped. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an empty argument. All you seem to be saying is that since proper procedure wasn't followed (and you haven't made a compelling case that it wasn't), the page should be called "List of". You haven't explained how "List of" is a superior name to "Outline of", or why this particular outline shouldn't be included in Wikipedia's set of outlines (other than that the proper steps weren't followed). If the more ambiguous "List of logic topics" is a better name, please explain why it is.

"Outline of logic" is a better name because it describes the nature of this list more accurately, follows WP:COMMONNAME, and matches the names of other articles of this type. The Transhumanist 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. "List of logic topics" is totally unambiguous, unlike the "outline of" title. I'm bending over in an attempt to extend some AGF toward you, and so I'm really beginning to wonder if you don't have English as your mother tongue. Your other arguments are just related to your anal obsession with using the word "outline" and they carry no weight. We've heard you perseverating about it for so long now, and yet it still doesn't make sense. You don't seem to realize that you are too deeply involved with the project/issue - and too close to it - to have any objective sense of why others object to your obsession. If you're feeling paranoid with all this unwanted attention from so many people, I can assure you that you're not per the old adage - "You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." The attention you're getting isn't coming out of thin air for some unwarranted reason. You've done some pretty bad things and now it's all coming back to visit you. While you are probably a very nice person, it is your actions that are the problem, and my criticism is directed at that. My attempt at extending some form of AGF toward you is that a language problem might be part of the reason you've gotten into this mess.

It all comes down to this: titles need to be chosen on a case by case basis, regardless of format. Stay flexible. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Article content, organisation, formatting, etc

This article is actually a huge mess, and really needs some cleanup. The multiple columns of wikilinks make this little better than an index, but without some of the advantages. Lists should be organised better than this, and this might need a fresh start. Verbal chat 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So, are you proposing deletion? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think some discussion of the best way to organise the data should take place, then we fix it piecemeal, and perhaps trim or add as required. I don't think the multiple columns of different depths etc is working here. Perhaps some subdivision is required. Open to suggestions. Verbal chat 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok columns are not "content" they are "format." If you have some criticism that would be helpful (in that other open minded editors would be able to respond to it) please do tell. Your criticism is quite vague. I am pretty sure the columns work just wonderfully for long lists like this.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see Verbal's point; some of the sections are 3-column lists, some may be 2-column (although I don't recall seeing any), some are one column, and some are run-on lists (without spacing indicating where one topic ends and another begins). But Greg's right; that's a format issue, rather than a content issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By content I was including layout and formatting issues, etc. - everything on the page. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Logic

why isn't this page more clearly structured than other pages like "Outline of Natural science"? 36.85.216.107 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)