Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Community consensus[edit]

This was brought up on WP:AN (now in the archives) and the help desk (at WP:Help desk#May I borrow your brain?). I don't recall consensus ever being sought for whether or not this was a good idea (if there was a community discussion, please link it). There seems to be a lot of objection. Should we have a centralized discussion about the usefulness of these outlines and post it on Template:Cent? hmwithτ 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it's strange that they're in the mainspace, where users can reach them by going to Special:Random. This may be confusing. hmwithτ 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with hmwith here, mainly because I'm not really sure why we would want these as well as portals-portals are more in depth & these are just lists which TBH in my opinion, would confuse new users & drive people away from proper articles. Dotty••|☎ 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've been discussed at the various Village Pumps numerous times, both for whether they should exist at all or not, and what namespace they belong in (search archives for "basic topic list").
They've been around since 2001 (check the OoK portal's history tab).
I'd suggest that portals are actually less in depth - they concentrate on featured content, new content, categories, and meta-aspects (wikiprojects, etc).
For example: In between the article Philosophy, the Portal:Philosophy, and the Index of philosophy articles, fits the Outline of philosophy. It's an overhead-view outline, that some people find a very useful format for learning from.
You are of course welcome to discuss them anywhere, but reading up on the history a little would help prevent too much repetition. It's definitely an audacious project, but there are a lot of editors and admins taking part already :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see them more as "organizational lists", i.e. organization of topics, as I explained on the MfD for Outline of British Columbia; they give an overview not possible in normal list formats, even table-ized ones, and not coverable in main-articles or in portals; and they help point out what gaps in article-coverage there are for the topic.Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MfD concerned Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia, a draft in the WP:WPOOK's project space, and it survived the MfD. The redirect to it in article space was correctly deleted/redlinked. Note that since the MfD, another draft for an outline on a Canadian province has been created: Outline of Saskatchewan. Welcome aboard! The Transhumanist 19:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think these articles came out of the blue. That might be because their names were changed to "Outline of" relatively recently (a few months ago). But this set of lists (which falls under the WP:LISTS guideline, and is a key part of Wikipedia's contents system) has been around since 2001, under various names, and has been under continuous rigorous development since 2005. In 2008, more people joined the effort, and the set has more than doubled in size in the past year.
By the way, since lists are a type of article, they belong in the main namespace.
Most of the objections over the years have been by editors who don't seem to understand what topic lists or outlines are or what they are for, or how outlines relate to other page types on Wikipedia. Fortunately, there has been much more support than opposition, with the consensus being that these articles are very useful for overviewing subjects and for finding one's way around the encyclopedia's coverage of them. Occasionally I've been asked why these aren't simply added to portals, or why not just stick with categories or navigation templates. Well, my short answer is: scope, versatility, scrollability, and customizability. For more detailed explanations, please see Wikipedia:Outlines, Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...?, and WP:CLN.
I hope the above explanation helps. The Transhumanist 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with the Outlines per se. However, the outlines should be positioned as supporting additional information. At the moment the renewed Outline initiative positions itself as one of the core pillars of Wikipedia (e.g. by placing demands to article/projec pages to correct redlinks, guidelines not to remove irrelevant stuff from guidelines and by placing hatline pointers to important articles). I am absolutely against that approach, and I think it is that rather arrogant approach towards other editors and projects that sparked the protest. In my view, a project starting a series of articles is ultimately responsible for the quality of these articles. In other words; if Outlines are to be positioned as core content, the Outline project, and that project alone is responsible that not a single outline article creates confusion or contradiction or is lowering the quality of existing articles. Unless the Outline project guarantees that, they should seriously tone down their style; and demands placed on (the time and effort) of others who have never asked for outlines.
It is the change in positioning of the Outlines that would indeed require broadly carried community consensus; simple discussion on some village pumps is just not enough if a second core (next to prose type topic articles) is added to Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've way overstated the case. At no time were demands made, only requests. Please remain objective.
There are no guarantees, and we're all in this together. No single person or project is responsible for page content. That's a shared responsibility of the whole of Wikipedia. To be otherwise is a violation of WP:OWN.
The pages fall within the scope of the WikiProjects of the corresponding subjects. Telling them that these pages are out of their jurisdiction would be a big mistake.
The Transhumanist 04:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline update - Good news and bad news - 06/08/2009[edit]

The big push continues.

And it seems to be working!

The good news is that there's growing support for outlines, and there are more editors than ever editing them!

The bad news is that the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages. While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes. Fortunately, barely enough supporters have been watching those pages that no consensus for moving or merging the outlines has succeeded. So far...

Big problem: ignorance of what outlines are for and their benefits[edit]

Most of the opposition seems to be unaware of the complete range of what outlines are used for. They just don't get it.

This is why it is important to complete the outline article draft. An article with a comprehensive treatment of outlines would be the perfect place to refer anybody unfamiliar with outlines to.

Opposers also don't seem to understand how outlines differ from some other page type that they prefer. Some think articles are good enough as an overview, others think portals are more in-depth, still others think categories or navigation boxes are the most efficient and useful way to organize and present topical information. Some have simply never seen an "Outline of" page before and think they are a new type of page (they've been around under other names since 2001).

If you run across anyone who doesn't understand the role of outlines on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? might help reduce their misconceptions or uncertainties about outlines.

On the bright side, you've got to see this...[edit]

To add the outlines and related support pages to your watchlist (takes less than 30 seconds), cut and paste them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist. For a way to improve the display of your watchlist - by namespace (very useful) - see Watchlist sorter, or use the "super fast upgrade" at WP:OTS.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes (currently without the talk pages) and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on the sidebar on the left side of your screen.

The big push[edit]

The big push started with about a thousand banners and notices being placed on article talk pages all over Wikipedia.

But it didn't stop there...

Welcome our new members...[edit]

The following Wikipedians have joined the OOK team.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and introduce yourselves.

Enter the mentors![edit]

I asked a bunch of mentors at WP:ADOPT for advice. Several of them answered on my talk page. Most of those who replied were happy to help, and posted some very good ideas. A couple even joined the project.

Here are their ideas, and what is being done about them. A few of the tasks still need volunteers:

Linking to outlines has begun[edit]

To the tops of about 30 subject articles, I placed a test batch of hatnotes leading to the corresponding outlines. The hatnotes look like this:

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of X.(Hidden: <!- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE because it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Wikipedia's overall coverage of this subject. Thank you.-->

Use the template {{Outline}} which will render the text above, put the comment after the template.

The rationale for the hatnotes is that each outline is a topical guide for its subject, and since tables of contents go at the front of a book, a link to each outline should be placed at the front of its subject.

Unfortunately, not all editors agree. Some of the hatnotes have already disappeared.  :(

Some past discussions pertaining to the existence or location of outlines[edit]

Note that the "Lists of topics" are of two types, including outlines and indexes, so discussions to remove, move, or merge those are usually relevant to the OOK. Also, outlines are a type of list, so discussions that affect lists in general also pertain to outlines. We've got to be on our toes!

I've excluded links to live discussions, out of respect for WP:CANVASS.

Table of contents to OOK-related stuff[edit]

Here's a directory of outline support pages:

Keep up the great work![edit]

The Transhumanist 04:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPOOK advert banner under development, here's the beta...[edit]

Thank you to those who suggested WPOOK have an animated advert banner. Penubag got working on it right away. Here's what he's come up with so far:

Penubag needs feedback.

I've posted a few changes for him to make to it.

Please post additional comments and suggestions for him at User talk:Penubag#Chocolate banner.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The banner looks wonderful! SriMesh | talk 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline collaboration![edit]

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MOS[edit]

I've noticed on several of the new outlines that MOS guidelines are not always being followed. For example, there appears to be a lot of WP:OVERLINKING (we don't need to link United States 3+ times in any outline - I don't think it's necessary to link it at all per the guideline). There are also layout issues (putting links to commons categories in the main body rather than in the external links, where they are supposed to go), and others along these lines. I'd encourage all of you to ensure that the templates you are using comply with the MOS as much as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the outlined subject should not be in bold, since the outline is not the main article about the subject. See WP:BOLDTITLE. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the subject is the focus of the outline - what it is about. "Outline" is just the type of article it is. The Transhumanist 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline collaboration #2: Outline of Gibraltar[edit]

This outline is approaching completion.

I added a bunch more links, finding them with the following Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia:

(You can use the wikicode for the links above as the basis for new searches - just replace "Gibraltar" with any other country or region name).

Request: please redirect the redlinks! (bluelinking...)[edit]

The redlinks need to be bluelinked where possible. The most useful way is to create redirects leading to the material (which is usually included in a section of an article - see Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects to page sections. That way, when the redirect pages are replaced by the actual articles, the links will already point to the right places.

Please take a crack at it, and bluelink a few.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: on an unrelated matter, where should the Outline of chocolate be placed on the OOK? -TT

      • Ummm, under Health and Fitness, of course! :-) :-)

Kathy (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish. The Transhumanist 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Wars section of Projected Outline[edit]

Having finally found the Projected Outline and figured out how it works, I made an initial contribution by adding planned drafts for the Cold War, for the Korean War, and for the Vietnam War. Since the Cold War is a broader term that includes the Korean War and the Vietnam War, I subsumed the latter two under the Cold War. I wasn't entirely sure if that was the right way to handle it, but it seemed odd, and incorrect, to me to make the Korean and Vietnam wars parallel with the Cold War, as if they were separate and unrelated (like WWI and WWII, for example). Not that WWI and WWII are unrelated to each other, but they are separate wars. You know what I mean. :-)

So, certainly I'm open to any different suggestions about how to handle that. I was thinking at first that this would not come up with any other war, since the Cold War by definition was more of a political phenomenon that included "hot" wars but was not itself a "hot" war, but I just now realized that we might have another instance of this with the "War on Terror" -- another broader political term within which one might list different "hot" conflicts. I think I am going to avoid that kettle of worms for now. I will stick with pre-9/11 conflicts! Kathy (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. See the lead section in List of military conflicts spanning multiple wars. The Transhumanist 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks, TT. Kathy (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found and converted Outline of the Vietnam War. Viola! The Transhumanist 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, I added a planned outline for the American Indian Wars. Although not as "official" as the others, it is an important part of American history and justifies an outline. Maybe we could recruit some members from the United States or Military history wikiprojects to help complete them. Minnecologies (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. The Transhumanist 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback[edit]

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and post to its talk page what you think of it.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 19:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request of Outline of sharks to Shark[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Outline of sharks#Merge. --Stefan talk 05:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this: you might be wrong[edit]

I notice that there is a great deal of insider knowledge being used to bolster outlines against "attack". For example, you request that participants copy all the outlines in their watchlists. Presumably so that many voices can be brought to bear on any naive person who requests a merge to the parent topic, a more insidious version of WP:CANVASSING. This page takes a rather political tone, with a "marshaling of forces" rhetoric that is not in the spirit of collaboration Wikipedia is supposed to be about. The idea that any objection to outlines needs to be "headed off at the pass" is a sure sign that you are not confident that these outlines would stand up to community-wide scrutiny, so it looks like the overall strategy is to have so many "settlements on the ground" that it would be unthinkable to contemplate deletion.

Now, before you get angry with me, I don't really have a problem with these methods being used to defend a valid new idea. But what if the idea is not as valid as it seems at first blush?

I have some questions for the participants, but they are not questions for you to answer me; they are questions for you to ask yourselves. If you are still confident that outlines are a valuable addition to Wikipedia, do not try to convince me.

  • When I look at the outline format, what I see doesn't look more navigable than the main articles, the older Portals, navboxes, or even the indexes of topics that nobody ever used. What they look like to me is the original article with all the non-Wikilinked text removed. Do you see that some people might think they look messy?
  • The Portals of old never had enough editors nor readers. Why do you suppose that was? Was it because they were poorly maintained and more work would have made users more likely to use them? Or was it because people don't research things like librarians wish they would? Will anybody really use these outlines?
  • Do you think regular users are incapable of using the infoboxes, navigation templates and categories? What is your evidence that there is user frustration with the current system?
  • Using the page view statistics available at stats.grok.se, does anybody read the outlines you have already made?
  • Are these outlines a waste of time? Could there be a better use of your editing hours?
  • Once the easy topics have been outlined, will there really be a tree of knowledge? Is such a tree possible?

Thank you for considering what I have said. Again, please do not answer me. Abductive (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, they're not new, for a start. They've been here since 2001. See also Propædia. And the idea of summarizing knowledge has been around for a few millennia...
  • Messy: Yes, they're still developing, like most of our articles.
  • Each type has appeal/benefits/problems: Japan, Outline of Japan, Portal:Japan, Index of Japan-related articles, Category:Japan. Yes, there could be a perfect, autogenerated, utterly-intuitive, never too-much nor too-little indexing system, but noone has built it so far... Until then, we have these manually created indices.
  • Stats: Portal:Japan vs Outline of Japan: about the same.
  • Waste of time: I've learned a lot from creating/checking/reading some of the outlines. So, no.
  • Redundant to infoboxes/navboxes/categories ("incapable of using"): answered at Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...?. They are Complementary, not redundant to.
Hopefully that answers a few of somebodies concerns :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the article Japan has over 100 times the page views as Portal:Japan or Outline of Japan. Abductive (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've touched on the traffic issue below. Changing the way search results work may also help. The Transhumanist 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to complement Quiddity's responses...
  • All-encompassing trees of knowledge are definitely possible. Here are some examples:
  • I'm very confident that the outlines as a set will hold up to community-wide scrutiny, and I welcome wide venue discussions with open arms. I'm not as confident that all the individual outlines can survive local opposition, especially when waged by certain individuals who oppose the whole set. Dbachmann, for instance, has launched some very deliberate attacks on specific pages, in a campaign to move outlines to portal space. He has also tried to recruit one of this WikiProject's members into helping him move the outlines to portal space. I think that this WikiProject's members need to be made aware of such threats. After all, they've put a lot of work into this.
  • Merges with the parent topic would never fly, since the resulting page would be way too long. Outlines typically contain many more links than the corresponding subject articles, presented in a more logical order than links embedded in a subject article's prose.
  • Most of the active members of this project have edited most if not all of the outlines, as we do a lot of batch work. Watching is a valid and needed activity. Mainly to counter vandalism and to monitor the quality of editing (including double-checking for our own mess-ups, which happens from time to time). Watching for prods is important too, since those become automatic deletions if left unanswered for five days. Nobody wants their work automatically deleted without a discussion. All editors need to watch the pages they've edited if they don't want them lost to prodding. It's good general practice, and therefore good advice.
  • Outlines are a work in progress. But even the messy ones are useful. See Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...?#...subject articles?
  • Outlines are improving over time, and eventually they'll all obtain the quality of Outline of anarchism, Outline of cell biology, Outline of forestry, and Outline of Japan.
  • Most of the outlines were orphans until recently, which definitely affected traffic. Outline traffic has grown as awareness of them has grown, and as integration into the encyclopedia has improved. The set's usfulness increases as the set grows too - the more comprehensive it becomes the more reliable it is for looking things up. And this will also drive traffic up - when a reader uses the system successfully for finding one thing, he's more likely to come back to use it to find another.
  • There doesn't have to be frustration with a system to justify creation of a better one. Improvement is a good thing in general.
  • The main problem with infoboxes, navigation templates, and categories is that they are more difficult to build. Outlines are much easier and faster to build, with a much higher output attainable per editor. They are also more adaptable and easier to customize to fit any given situation. Outlines are easier to maintain as well, and to keep up to date. This translates into greater utility for the reader.
  • Unlike portals, outline development is accellerating. These things are catching on, and as they do, they are multiplying faster. Outlines have more than doubled in number in the past year alone, which would not have been possible without the fine editors who have volunteered their time and effort.
  • Since finding information is usually half the battle, making information easier to find is definitely worth the time and effort put into it.
  • I hope somebody finds the above explanations useful and informative.
The Transhumanist 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sides to every story. The only real power over consensus any one editor has on Wikipedia is to bring up issues that went unconsidered in the framing of the initial question or dispute. We both agree that Portals are moribund. The question is, can Outlines escape this fate? Outlines have (presently) the advantage of being in mainspace. Portals are aesthetically more appealing. But the real competitors of both are the main articles.
Dbachmann has a very good point; these outlines are like ugly Portals, and using tactics to try and point out flaws in them is not a "threat" unless you think you own the Outlines. You use tactics and strategies to defend them that fail to address the flaws in the Outline system, a poor course of action if you turn out to be wrong. The suitability of Outlines needs to be considered carefully with a lot of input from a lot of people. Right now you are flying under the radar.
When a person first stumbles upon one of these Outlines, they have a number of reactions. One is to say, what a great idea; a way to combat tl;dr. Another may simply look at the thing as a hideously ugly List, but think it is useful, or not. Others might see it as duplicative of the search bar, Portals, the also moribund Contents/Topics or the main article, or as a content fork. I see them as well-meaning, but basically just indented Lists that are duplicative of the other extant navigational systems.
You have also made the classic mistake of not understanding the appeal of browsing; users read the main articles to find out stuff they didn't know and for enjoyment, not to do research in something like the Dewey Decimal system. Have you noticed that the main power of hypertext is the near collapse in usage of these older library systems?
I disagree with the notion that there need not be frustration with the current systems to justify making these Outlines; current frustration would be a good measure of the utility of the Outlines and the potential traffic they may enjoy.
Personally, I want outsiders to critique my ideas. The fact that people are discovering your Outlines, and some are moved to view them as merge-worthy should be taken as a wonderful opportunity to convert somebody to your point of view or to be moved to abandon this Project. It should not be taken as a "threat", and delaying tactics are unethical. You should ask for community discussion at the earliest possible moment, as soon as you have a handful of Outlines in good shape.
You should not Wikilawyer, you should not claim that they have been around since the earliest days (even if true, that isn't relevant); you should not CANVASS.
Finally, I am not "out to get" these Outlines. I think they might be okay. For example, if they were more treelike in their formatting, something like {{Familytree}}, that would make me happier about the ugly. Or maybe if they kept up with the style employed in Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge? I am dismayed to read that you think that Outlines are better than info and navboxes because they are easier to lay out; this means you will not be open to suggestion for aesthetic improvements. Abductive (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outline project has been trying as hard as possible to "NOT" fly under the radar, for the last few years.
We've: had numerous discussions on the village pumps (proposals, technical, policy), started wikiprojects, made many WP:CBB postings, left notices at dozens (hundreds?) of wikiproject talkpages, left banners at dozens (hundreds?) of wikiprojects, left notices/banners at hundreds of article talkpages, and added links to hundreds of seealso sections. We get alternately accused of being too quiet and being too loud! Getting the correct balance to please everyone is impossible, though suggestions for improvements are always welcome :)
(Those discussions have included: whether they should exist, and what namespace they belong in, and what their scope should be, and what shape/structure/presentation they could/should have, and much more. 4 years worth of quite active discussion, much of it repeated a few times.)
I agree that the ways The Transhumanist phrases things can sometimes be imperfect or ownish (and I have critized him for such, more times than I'd like to remember), but I'm not perfect either (ha!*) and he provides much of the organization and motivation for some of the project's efforts and provided most of the initial framework.
*(I know I often end up inflaming a discussion, when all i intended to do was add a piece of context (such as the distant date of origin of a project!). Wording things "properly" is exhausting/tricky. As the quote from the translation of Lettres provinciales goes, "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short". The Transhumanist often says too much, and I often say too little. From my perspective, at least.)
I think we're dismayed by dbachmann's comments today, because he asked the same things a month ago and ignored our responses back then, and seems to have ignored the closing suggestion to start an RfC instead of bringing it to WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Shadow Wikipedia). See the other 3 threads marked "May 2009" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/List of discussions concerning outlines too.
Hopefully that all provides some kind of useful context. Feel free to ask for more :)
Also: We're totally happy to incorporate any aesthetic/usability improvements. I've been trying to find time to experiment with {{category tree}} to see if that will fit in anywhere, or whether people will tolerate it in list/mainspace/etc. I'm also mulling over a few possible suggestions for the navtemplates, to be brought up at one of the WP:template standardization pages, to address problems or ideas which having so many navboxes in one place has led to (eg outline of geography). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for dbachmann, but here is the dilemma as I see it; the Outlines are unattractive and need more visual structure, color and so forth, but to do that makes them into Portals. Look at Portal:Anarchism and Outline of anarchism; aside from their layouts they cover much the same material. The Outline even has a link to the categories just like the Portal. Once you add things like those [+] folding category trees they will be the portals. And the Portals are failures. Abductive (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! They could be improved. Please join in, whether with suggestions or active assistance.
Personally, I dislike the use of {{column}} templates and hope they get phased out rapidly from these outlines, in favor of something more informative/clear.
Most/many of the outlines are still in a startstub-quality state. This is part of the chicken&egg problem of how much to promote them and solicit feedback/assistance for them.
As for portals, they contain a lot of self-references to cleanup and wikiproject and current event items, and often provide a very haphazard sampling of contents. They also don't get included in the default site-search results, which is a small part of why they are underused. Portals now seem to be a hybrid between a wikiproject page and an outline/overview.
We also have the various vital/core/essential article lists (eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#List of vital articles) which I've been pointing to whenever questions of scope come up here.
I don't think the outlines need any "color", unless it is going to make a particular piece of information clearer. Maps/images/etc are already used in many outlines, but I don't think that is what you meant by "color". -- Quiddity (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I don't like about Portals is that each one has a different layout/color scheme. I also don't like their Picture of the Day stuff. As for the Outlines' "color", why not have them all look like Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge? One could also take over many of the moribund Portals and Indexes and convert them into Outlines without reinventing the wheel. Abductive (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outlines and portals are not the same. I've tried to find a specific article in a portal, index, and category, but none do the job as well as an outline because it is not their purpose. -- penubag  (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but do they do the job as well as the main article? Abductive (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Outlines do its job much better than the main article because their jobs are totally different. The main article presents the information (eg. Japan gives info about Japan and outline of Japan gives you a list of where to find other articles about Japan). Two totally different jobs, but both very useful. If I could ask kindly, could you please read the Wikipedia:WPOOK#How_do_outlines_help_me.3F? It takes less than a minute, I promise. -- penubag  (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere above I went into some detail, but what "How do outlines help me?" could be interpreted to say, "Portals need to have more and better listings of the articles they are the Portal for". Is there any other reason for Portals to exist?
The problem is figuring out the cause of the failure of Portals to port. I submit that people don't use them, so people don't edit them, so they do a poor job, so people use them even less.
Why don't people use the Portals? I say it is because they use the main article, the search bar, their brains and sometimes the navboxes, categories, the Lists, the Indices, and the Glossaries.
Sample the naive edits (by persons not in the Wikiproject) to your Outline of Japan and there are only 2 substantive ones (and quite a few vandals and housekeeping edits). An IP changed the number of islands to 6000 but the source is suspect, and a user added a notable person. This suggests that very few people are going to improve these Outlines after their creations.
The methods used to create these Outlines are exactly the methods a person could use to do a deep search of a topic should they ever want to. But, as I said above, I am not sure that people are using Wikipedia in this way. Why are 500,000+ people a month reading the article on Japan? I suspect to find a single piece of information such as what percent of the population is Christian, or the spelling of name of the current Emperor. You might contend that wading through the whole article is a problem that Outlines solve, but CTRL-F works wonders.
If you guys insist on devoting the thousands of hours of editing needed to do this right, my suggestion is to integrate what you guys are doing here with the existing systems. Dbachmann might say that these things should be converted to Portals; I say that Portals should be brought into mainspace as Outlines. But I also say that the current look of the Outlines is ugly compared to what is possible, such as Portal:Contents. Abductive (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could say that portals do it's job by focusing on featured content and aiming at getting the reader interested in a specific topic, but I have to agree with you; other than that, portals are pretty darn useless. All the evidence you presented above proves this. And that's precisely the reason why we've stepped up to provide what portals should have. I know you're saying that our integration into the encyclopedia is poor and people are more likely to use other means to obtain content rather than the outlines, and I also agree with you there. But we have a huge dilemma, every time we try to push these outlines a little further, fire gets rained on us. Absurd questions like, "how's an outline different from x?", "Why the hell does this exist? I support a mass deletion" get's us pretty scared we aren't doing this right. So yes, we aren't integrating into the encyclopedia as much as we want to (and should) and we're desperate for solutions, any tips? -- penubag  (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The questions aren't absurd. I suppose that the best evidence would be some sort of page view stats proof that an Outline leads people to articles that have been overlooked under the existing system. If this was a business, you could conduct a survey of the customers. Here you might have to look at edit trails, where a user edits an article in the topic, then edits another article, and the Outline was in the fastest (fewest clicks) path between the edits. Or you could find some other method of assessing the frustration levels of users with finding their way around Wikipedia. Perhaps a retrospective survey of the kind of questions asked at the Reference desk? Abductive (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd was the wrong word, it's more like Annoying. Annoying since all the information to their questions are more than available (and they don't read), and annoying since everyone's resolution to problems they don't understand are DELETE! Software required to accurately assess which route users take when in need for searching for something would be hard to construct. Very hard specifically since users may not even find what they are looking for. If software were used to monitor my search habits before I knew about outlines, I can say I would kinda find what I'm looking for but not quite. For example, in the Water article, I looked up the article since I'm interested about the color of water, I would read a short sentence on the color of water on the page, but would have been even more satisfied if I knew color of water and Water (data page) existed. There's no way of determining whether I "found my way within Wikipedia" with software based statistics. But I think a survey would be a better idea and be a good, accurate way of accessing this issue. -- penubag  (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent refactoring)

There are a couple of good reasons not to read the rational for Outlines. First, tl;dr, which is itself part of the reason for Outlines. Second, a better way to judge is by the effects rather than the stated purposes. I think the Outlines are displeasing to the eye. Other people might go from that directly to "let's delete this". Is it unfair? Not really; usability engineers would say that the way something looks is very important for getting users to like it and use it. Abductive (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I disagree with you but there are no excuses to not read the rational for outlines if one is going to be in a debate to delete all such outlines. tl;dr for sure better not apply here. It's like saying, "Too long so didn't read rational, not sure why we have them cuz I'm too lazy to figure out but will participate in a debate to remove them anyways!" Outlines are not new at all, they've been around before typewriters, and if you believe they are displeasing to the eye, then my suggestion is to not use them. But many others find them useful. You said above that because something is ugly, it becomes a valid reason for it to be removed, which I totally disagree. It's beauty on the inside that counts, this does not only apply to this but to the race and sex of a human being for another example. And yes, on this part, I would say it is unfair. I'm not sure what's so ugly about an indented list so much that it would warrant for a deletion. Pertaining to usability, how much more usable can a simple outline become? That is the purpose of an outline! That's what's different from an outline from a list! -- penubag  (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. Yes, I think they are unattractive, but that is not a reason for deletion, nor am I calling for their deletion. What I am saying is that other people might find them ugly and segue from that into calling for their deletion. I am also saying that visual structure is very important in a written page's usability. "Beauty on the inside" doesn't really apply to text because text is all "outside". That is why I suggested that the Outlines should all be made to look like Portal:Contents or a similar scheme. Abductive (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are not calling for their deletion, but I was replying to your comment about valid reasons for deletion from the previous reply.
I find these two statements contradictory: "I think the Outlines are displeasing to the eye. Other people might go from that directly to "let's delete this". Is it unfair? Not really" and "I think they are unattractive, but that is not a reason for deletion". You implied in the first sentence by "not unfair" that because they are unattractive, it is "not unfair" to ask for deletion.
Believe me, I've been in the usability department before. But an outline is an outline...and we're even calling it one. Deviating from what everyone is used to in a standard outline would become more of a usability issue. If you're suggesting pretty colors and lights to make it less 'ugly', I hardily believe that would make it more usable. oh, and BTW, WP:OOK is currently in the process of being completely redesigned to look more like Portal:Contents-- penubag  (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) A standard outline has all those Roman numerals and letters and numbers and so forth. The Outlines here just use indenting, and are hard to navigate. What is the purpose of an outline? To signify hierarchy. These Outlines don't do a very good job of that, to my eyes. The Tables of Contents that the Wikisoftware automatically generates is more readable, and have you ever noticed that it is on a faint blue background? Abductive (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good. Abductive (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "standard outline", I meant without fancy headers and css styles. There really is no "standard outline". Outlines can be formatted as they seem fit for the situation. Roman numerals, letters and numbers and so forth are typical features of some outlines (when I outline off-wiki, I never use roman numerals, but that doesn't make it less an outline or more/less ugly). But I'm not saying what we're doing here is perfect, if you have a specific suggestion, I'd love to hear it. Yes, the TOC automatically generated by MediaWiki, does its job; it outlines that one article with links to sections of that article. Outlines are different and used for different purposes; they list individual articles of the entire subject, where TOCs don't, and provide an outline for the subject, which TOCs don't either (I wouldn't say at all that showing hierarchy is even a secondary objective of our outlines). Outlines are naturally harder to navigate because its a lot longer because it encompasses a larger scope. There aren't any usability improvements against this, and if there is, I'd be very happy to hear one. Of course I noticed the TOC has a faint background, and they have it to distinguish between the actual article and the TOC. A grey background would not help an outline page because it's not being transcluded into an article. -- penubag  (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I was inclined to try to make a good-looking, colorful outline scheme, I would first look at all the Portals for inspiration and techiques (such as collapsing tables) that I could find. I would then find editors with Wiki-skills to help create a Wizard or Wizard-like device to allow users enter the components of the Outline, hit 'submit' and get a nicely (and consistently) formatted outline. Abductive (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "outline scheme". Are you suggesting we format every one of our outlines to become colorful with collapsible tables? I myself would support a single color for all outlines that would be specific to outlines (as we have now for User and other namespaces (that really light blue background color)) but that is done on the software level and is not achievable without a developer. Collapsing tables are not a good idea because that would destroy the definition of outlines. Outlines do not have hidden components, rather all the content is visible at once, hence is why we have the indenting to show hierarchy as an alternative. Also, actually implementing collapsible tables would not make since on an outline (what should be collapsed, what shouldn't?). I like your second idea of a wizard like device. We have in fact already discussed this and some ideas are already floating around (the wizard being one of them).-- penubag  (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer colors and some sort of structure. Above I mentioned {{familytree}} and again I suggest looking at Portals for things like collapsing tables. Abductive (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer colors but the structure part is already done: they are structured as an outline. The familytree template and other boxes, cells, and tables of typical portals pages do not belong in an outline, but perhaps in another namespace. -- penubag  (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then none of my objections will have been addressed, especially the one about nobody using these things. The Outlines will receive traffic orders of magnitude lower than their parent articles, and eventually all your work will float off into the æther as Portals did before them. Abductive (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People aren't using them because their "ugly" (I personally think they're okay), no one is using these because not enough people know they exist. We tried placing {{hatnote}} links pointing to the outlines but they were removed by users saying not enough good quality outlines exist. So we're here now trying to get as many quality outlines made so we can be public. One of my goals in the far future is to get a small link in the TOC to the corresponding outline. That would make much more since and actually be really helpful for the reader. And just as an index or glossary, (this even applies for a book), outlines 'will' receive traffic magnitudes lower than their parent articles. -- penubag  (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of all the dialogue? Nobody agreed with any of the points in my first post, and nothing will change. Abductive (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I for one agreed with a number of your points.
I agreed that they could be improved aesthetically and usability-wise, and that the tone used when talking about them was occasionally inappropriate.
I agreed that "scope" was a good topic for discussion.
I tried to point out where these things had been discussed before.
I meant to specifically agree that using the {{familytree}} template is a potentially wonderful idea, please do! (and I should have mentioned that using {{category tree}} is a potentially terrible idea).
As for whether the Outlines are superior to Portals, is a tricky topic, because they ostensibly serve different purposes. Apples and oranges. They should ideally cross-pollinate (whether with content/layout/namespace is all a bit subjective though), but that's probably a topic for a larger venue.
So, the discussion did some good, from my perspective at least. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem with the hatnotes is that this usage was totally counter to WP:HATNOTE, which says that "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article, normally to provide links to other similarly named articles or disambiguation pages." See specifically the section WP:RELATED. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Abductive (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive is completely right. This project has all aspects of a "cult", or the proverbial cabal.

the recurring claim that this stuff dates back to 2001 is, excuse me, bullshit.The Outlines project was started in October 2007, as a perfectly reasonable sub-project of Portal:Contents. The aggressive pushing of these outlines by The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) dates to May or June 2009.

linking "outlines" in hatnotes is unacceptable and should be treated as vandalism. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's twisting things, as usual. We keep pointing out, and he keeps ignoring, that Portal:Contents is a set of a few top-level pages that list articles of various types. There's one for featured articles, another for topcis lists, another for outlines, another for glossaries, etc. While those pages list articles, the articles themselves aren't part of the portal. Featured articles, list articles, outline articles, etc., are all in article space.
Lists are considered to be part of Wikipedia's navigation system. All lists. In that context, list wikiprojects are part of the contents wikiproject.
I've been working on structured lists since 2005, under the nym User:Go for it!, and before that under an anonymous IP.
But pages of this type have been on Wikipedia since long before I started editing, including many of the "Outline of" article pages. If you don't believe this, simply check their edit histories. There are only around 500 structured lists that have the title "Outline of", but there are thousands more we haven't renamed yet. The Transhumanist 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not mean that these articles have legitimacy. The problem is that the articles don't meet the requirements of WP:NAME as "Outline of" is not a recognised topic in the world at large, and unless they cite evidence of notability, there is no rationale for inclusion as they conflict with WP:NOT#DIR. Basically these articles are content forks from the topics which they are allegedly outlining. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions[edit]

Discussions related to outlines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/List of discussions concerning outlines.

The Transhumanist 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the directory to the wikiproject page, so that things are easier to find, and because that is the standard purpose of wikiproject pages! I've added all the related templates I could find, too. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The directory is transcluded elsewhere. When you merged it, the whole project page got transcluded there. I've reverted it to a separate page and have transcluded it to the project page. The Transhumanist 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Couldn't we simply have a link to it? We already have a link to most all the pertinent links on the front page including a link to the directory itself. I feel that an overly long and complicated looking page is a usability issue, not to mention its purpose is redundant. -- penubag  (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats or Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football or any other serious wikiproject. This is what wikiproject pages are for. To list relevant links. Splitting things across multiple pages just makes it harder to find anything, for everyone except the people who originally design it.
  • The only thing complicated about this page currently is the wikicode/html table layout.
  • The gigantic link to a draft "Contests!" page is not really very helpful at the moment.
  • The navbar at the top links to within the page. The navbar at the bottom (styled in the same horizontal list format) links to other pages. That is bad usability.
  • Most of the pages in the directory are not included in the wikiproject page (unless it is transcluded/merged).
  • I'd spent some time adding links and templates, which weren't listed anywhere. It'd be great if in undoing the merge you'd retained the content that was added. I've added it back in now. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are unlike other Wikiprojects in that we are constantly under fire and in need of new users. Keeping the page to a minimum is important if we need people to read, understand, and become interested in outlines. If someone looked at a page like Wikiproject cats, they are more likely to not read any of it than some if it were shorter. There are other wikiprojects that don't have directory listing on the front page, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_24.
I don't feel the wikicode is that complicated as long as you click on the intermittent [edit] links unless you are aiming at changing the formatting and tables. I've also removed the contest link, which I should have done a while ago when I saw that it wasn't going to be completed for a while.
I felt the bottom link bar was sufficient enough for links that do not need that much attention, like the newsletters, watchlist, and arguments. The other links were listed already earlier but some of the other links should be better integrated.
I'm not sure I understand what merge you'd like me to undo. Are you talking about the old page WP:WikiProject_Outline_of_knowledge/old page or this which wasn't done by me.
I appreciate your comments. -- penubag  (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I meant TT's unmerge. The reply was to both of you. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate project goals[edit]

All- I've been thinking about the nature of the (rational) objections to the outline project, and I've noticed that the main problem seems to be we haven't made it entirely clear what the scope of the project is. Ryan Paddy sums it up pretty well here:

"I've had a look at the Outlines project, and I can see now how an "Outline" is a high-level guide to a broad subject area. Which differentiates it from most hierarchical lists, and also explains why 190 is a bigger number than it appears, because they are broad subject areas. So at this stage I don't have a problem with Outline lists being described here, so long as their purpose is made clear and it's apparent that they are a specific type of hierarchical list for a specific purpose."

We have to be very explicit in the project page and the outline guidelines that outlines should only exist for very broad subject areas. Having an outline for too small or arbitrary a subject could be considered a WP:CFORK, especially if all (or the majority) of the links in the outline are in the main article, which is nearly impossible for a subject that warrants an outline. For this reason it should be high priority for the project to complete the WP:PROL and have a solid example of what we're all trying to do, especially as we expand. Minnecologies (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK covers scope (and its own scope has grown over time). The problem is that there is a contradiction between WP:CFORK and WP:LIST. Note that a list is a type of article, just like a regular (non-list) article is a type of article. A list and a regular article that have the same subject in their titles share the same scope, and technically violate Cfork. But the list guideline has provided for the existence of lists, which includes topic lists, since September 2003. Cfork was written in April 2005 to curtail one strategy of POV pushing (which generally doesn't apply to list creation). Cfork needs to be modified so it doesn't conflict with list guidelines. The Transhumanist 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How broad is broad enough? I never dreamed we would have an Outline of chocolate, but Penubag convinced me that there were enough articles about chocolate to warrant an outline, so I tried building one, and it worked. Then Stefan built Outline of wine. I've never considered "very broad" to apply to chocolate or wine, or to sharks, yet their outlines rock. Where do we draw the line? We don't. If an outline sucks, it will be AfD'd, and the folks at AfD have been doing a fine job of critiquing outlines (see WP:OOKDISC#Articles for deletion discussions). I don't think we need to worry too much about someone building an Outline of toe nail debris, because if they do, you know what will happen. Another safety precaution in place is the OOK draft area - it's a place for outlines to grow. If they don't grow into useful outlines, we generally don't move them out of there. The problem is already solved. The Transhumanist 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more in thought that we could make the project development more clear to protect against unwarranted (a.k.a. dbachmann-esque) criticisms of the effort as a whole. Which is why I think we need to emphasize the draft area as the place for default creation of new outlines, and make more mention of it in the guidelines and other OOK spaces. Minnecologies (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects[edit]

Since I began developing Outline of Palestine, I've noticed how useful the Outline is in organizing articles tagged by WP:PALESTINE, locating articles that were not previously tagged, and in identifying where we need to do more work. Have the different Wikiprojects concerned all been contacted about the outlines? If they have, and the response was lukewarm, we might try marketing it to them by a) emphasizing its utility to organizing articles covered by the project and identifying which new articles are needed, what needs to expanded, etc.; b) by offering Wikiproject awards, for projects that have at least five editors who have contributed to the development of an Outline. (I think they do this for DYK.) I don't know if it will help, but if you need testimonies from very happy wikiproject members on how its helping them to better organize their work, I'd be happy to oblige. Thanks for inviting me to participate and thanks for developing this wonderful guide to Wikipedia. Tiamuttalk 05:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, I have been editing Shark articles in wikipedia for over 6 years (ouch) and I found quite a few new articles that I did not knew existed and to many that should be made :-) --Stefan talk 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another 100% agree, I started WP:FORESTRY after completing the Outline of forestry, and through editing it it made it almost ridiculously easy to identify much needed articles. I had some motivation at the beginning of the month and created a WikiProject outreach page in order to coordinate efforts. Perhaps now would be the time to seriously look into it. Minnecologies (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea Minnecologies. Maybe we will want to use the talk page there to discuss how to proceed. Perhaps we can split up the different topics between us and begin alerting others. Tiamuttalk 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of methodology, outline articles are great and simply really efficient. Good idea, good practice !! Yug (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC) (from the Graphic Lab)[reply]

And start the discussion! Minnecologies (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that outlines can be extremely useful for editors and especially for WikiProjects. Perhaps they should best be considered WikiProject-specific workpages. What you need to do is stop the spamming (yes, spam, there is no other term for this), stop the belligerent us vs. them approach, and above all the overly aggressive hogging of prominent screenspace (hatnotes!). Consider this project as a service for those interested, and stop treating as a kind of proselytization effort. Try to respect that you don't own Wikipedia. There is room for what you are doing, and some people might even thank you for your efforts, but stop trying to shove this down the throat of the general population on grounds that people have to be forced into seeing the light for their own good.

I fully respect this Wikiroject, as originally conceived in October 2007, i.e.

this WikiProject [...] covers every aspect of the Lists of basic topics. They are part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation system, [emphasis mine] and can be accessed from the Contents entry on Wikipedia's navigation menu (on the sidebar).

The problems this project is causing is due to the recent (since this June) behaviour of a single editor, The Transhumanist (talk · contribs). There is nothing wrong with the project itself, but if this aggressive over-enthusiasm isn't checked, the project is going to suffer from it. Already, it presents the impression of being run by a bunch of high-schoolers on amphetamines. You want to tone this back down to a distinguished project serving Wikipedia's contents listing. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my own encounters with Transhumanist, I've found his enthusiasm inspiring, and I would not have known about this effort if it weren't for his creation of Outline of Palestine. That said, I think though it would be more constructive to the discussion here and elsewhere though to avoid making it personal. Tiamuttalk 10:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Keep in mind that Dbachmann has been trying to portray the project as something it is not. The set of outlines, which were previously named "List of", were all constructed following Wikipedia's list guidelines. Dbachmann is pushing a viewpoint and objective that does not have consensus. A proposal was made in March of 2008 to Move navigational lists to portal namespace and it failed. Dbachmann is presenting his viewpoint as if it is the accepted norm, but that simply is not the case. If you are interested in the various discussions on outlines, we're building a list of them at WP:OOKDISC. You'll notice many instances in which Dbachmann violates WP:CIVIL. And yes, we're all getting tired of his approach. The Transhumanist 03:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a related conversation pertaining to WikiProject adoption of outline building:

The Transhumanist 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes to outlines[edit]

Is there an established Wikipedia policy on the use of hatnotes to link to outline articles? If so, where is it, please? DionysosProteus (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Et voilà. Minnecologies (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Currently, there is no guideline that explicitly covers the use of hatnotes to lead to outline articles. The Transhumanist 22:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we go about establishing one, since it's clearly needed, one way or the other? DionysosProteus (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Either use "see also", or work it in very selectively indeed to lead sections. Anything else will provoke massive resistance. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It will only provoke a backlash against the outlines themselves. Abductive (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is clear that there needs to be a definitive statement in the guidelines saying so. How do we go about getting that? DionysosProteus (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems perfectly adequately covered at Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking_to_articles_that_are_highly_related_to_the_topic under "improper uses". Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that it is. Given that the outlines are being produced for all the major areas of knowledge on Wikipedia, it ought to be stated explicitly that a hatnote to an outline is inappropriate, if that is the community consensus. How is that process initiated? DionysosProteus (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people - something I don't understand[edit]

How are the lists of notable people determined? The idea of creating an outline of pornography has been brought up, so I went and looked at a couple other occupational outlines (painting and film). In the film outline, only about a dozen notable directors are mentioned. How is this list compiled? What standards are there for inclusion in these lists of notable people within a profession? It wouldn't take much effort at all to think of several more notable directors, so what makes these dozen or so notable enough to be in the outline? Dismas|(talk) 04:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very subjective yes, and I think the best way to go about determining suitable notability would be through an external reference. Preferably something moderately academic (non-commercial) if someone has access to it, that would create a pretty concrete basis for inclusion/exclusion criteria. The main outline creation template includes a references section for this very reason. I personally think an outline of pornography would be a great idea, if you go ahead and create it do so in draft space first. You'd be amazed how much time it takes to organize a subject outline. Minnecologies (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's too subjective to manage; that's why the list of notable people was removed from the in-progess Outline of Rock Music. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could be non-subjective, and include all of those covered on Wikipedia (they must be notable to have an article about them), something like this:

Pornographic actors

Think of the lists as extensions of the outline. If there's a type or group of porn stars missing, create a list of them, and include a link to that list in the outline.

For a similar example, see Outline of radio#Radio stations.

The Transhumanist 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It would be advisable to only link to lists of people rather than list indivduals, unless they play a pivotal role in the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that "pivotal" covers the original intent behind listing certain individuals. If that word is clearer and more accurate than "notable", then yes, we should say that. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two project concerns[edit]

1. You should make your WikiProject banner simplier. WikiProject banners talk about what scope the article is under and how to reach to the project. You don't need to offer a treastise on the merits of outlines. Stick to the basics.

2. I've noticed an "outline of Knowledge" template being posted on scores of article talk pages that says "This subject is featured in the Outline of knowledge, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia." This really has nothing to do specificially with the talk pages in question, instead functioning to draw people away from focusing on the topic at hand. As such, it pretty much constitutes at talk page spam, so it would be wise to do away with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to 1: Lots of editors don't know what an outline is, and most of the rest remember them as just a paper planning tool they learned in school. Because of this we were getting a lot of posts like "I don't get the point of this article", and we were spending a lot of time answering them and other basic questions. So the banner was designed to address the role of outlines, and was placed where editors interested in developing or commenting upon a particular outline were likely to go first. The results have been good, and the number of editors who "get it" and jump right in to outline development has increased.
Answer to 2: The article talk page banners are on topic by supporting development of the article, which is the purpose of article talk pages. (In addition to being a subject presentation) outlines are both a writing and navigation tool that helps editors. For a discussion of the benefits to subjects, see WT:WPOOK#Utility of outlines to wikiprojects. Outline development improves editor awareness of the structure of the subject, and may lead to the discovery of problems with the article (its structure and coverage) and to the article's subject as a whole and how the two are integrated. These benefits are derived from creating outlines from existing coverage (as opposed to creating them in a prewriting phase), a process called "reverse outlining", which serves as a potent revision and composing method.
The Transhumanist 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the South Island[edit]

You may be interested in the deletion discussion for this article.-gadfium 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud to announce the first inductee into WPOOK's Hall of Fame...[edit]

I have the honor and privilege of announcing to you that Buaidh is the first member of the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject's Hall of Fame, and the first recipient of the Wikipedia World Developer Award. The Transhumanist 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank all the Wikipedia:WPOOK volunteers for this tremendous honor. None of my personal accomplishments would be possible without the grace of my Lord and Savior, Charles Robert Darwin, FRS, whose example inspired the forbearance to seek out the diamonds in the mountains of bovine excrement. But most of all, I wish to thank the little people, my grandchildren, who keep asking "why?" It is for them and all the future generations that we labor. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

guidance and reviews[edit]

I made a call at WP:MILHIST for guidance and reviews concerning outlines within their scope here. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of Western U.S. State[edit]

I'm not sure that the "Territorial evolution of Western U.S. State" articles belong in the WP:OOK. My original intent in writing these articles was to follow a chronology similar to the Territorial evolution of the United States article. I used excerpts from the "Historical outline of U.S. State" articles until the chronologies can be completed. Eventually, these articles should resemble the Territorial evolution of the United States. --Buaidh (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While these are lists, they are not outlines. --Danger (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the current Outline guidelines should exist is being discussed[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Failed.

The Transhumanist 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion[edit]

Just so you know, the validity of OOK project is again being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#List AND Outlines. Also, I was looking see if there were any good examples to show that outlines should be classified differently than lists and found that the article Outline of water used as an example at the top of the project page redirects to List of water topics. If this is supposed to be an example of why we need outlines in addition to lists then you might want to pick a different one.--RDBury (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved undiscussed by an opposer to the outlines and then got the page move protected. Outline of water IS an outline not a list -- penubag  (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split information about outlines from project banner[edit]

I have witnessed a few claims of 'ownership', I am not commentating on the validity of this or not, but the project banner Template:WikiProject Outline of knowledge won't be helping... It seems a bit uneven to include a wikiproject in the description. My solution would be to split the first paragraph introducing outlines into a new template, which leaves the WOOK Project banner as a more standard one... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tweaks are good. I agree that it was too verbose - the intent to inform was good, but the large block of text was non-standard and hence disconcerting to many.
It could probably be reduced even further in text size. Template:WPMILHIST is probably one of the best and most worked-over banners, to use as a guide, perhaps. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have managed to split the information up further ( providing a seperation of outlines from the project itself) , pending agreement, without needing to create another template, and further simplified the text. I think this should help. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called[edit]

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?

The Transhumanist 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of several "outline" articles[edit]

Hello. Just bringing to your attention the afd for all "Outline of the History of X US State" articles, here : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Outline_of_Louisiana_history#Outline_of_Louisiana_history. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of that AfD was to merge these outlines into the corresponding U.S. State outlines. So far, the merges have been completed up through New York. I'll gladly merge the rest as time permits. The Transhumanist 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic geography topics[edit]

I propose that the List of basic geography topics article be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. The nomination would read as follows:

This lists of loosely associated topics fails WP:NOT#DIR. The reasons are three fold:

  1. "Basic geography topics" or "Basic topics in geography" is not a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. If the title of this list were to be to "List of basic topics in geography", "List of topics related to geography" or "List of geography topics", this would make no difference;
  2. The definition of a basic geography topics is neither defined nor cited by any reliable secondary source that supports the inclusion of this list as a seperate standalone list article;
  3. In reality, the subject matter of this list is the categorisation of certain topics as being geography related, which is already dealt with by the Category:Geography and its related sub-categories.

This list is basically WP:Listcruft that provides no context in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that could provide context to the reader. It is a magnet for original research and unsourced content that is in no way encyclopedic.

Can any editor suggest a radical remedy these issues? Comments at Talk:List of basic geography topics#Deletion proposal would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defining a minimum scope for Outline articles[edit]

You should see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Scope of "Outline" articles. Maurreen (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who started the Village Pump discussion. I had not heard of the Outline project before I came across Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands while editing Cocos (Keeling) Islands. After reading about the purpose and objectives of the project and the model article Outline of Japan, I agree that these Outline articles can be useful. However, I don't see the purpose of an Outline article for a content area as small as the Cocos Islands, a small island group with only 600 inhabitants. There is hardly a relevant topic that could not be covered or linked in the named article on the islands. The Outline article does not offer anything beyond the non-Outline article other than a list of empty headings. I think that the Outline project would be strengthened by establishing a minimum scope for any Outline article. Someone on the Village Pump suggested a minimum of 50 linked relevant articles. Below something like that number, I think an Outline article amounts to content forking, which is grounds for deletion. Does this make sense? Marco polo (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Quiddity has suggested some minimum criteria for the scope of Outline articles on this Outline RfC draft page. Can we build a consensus on these? Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen, I hope you don't mind that I've changed the heading to better reflect the issue under discussion. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of thought on the redlinks doesn't help either. Glaciers of the Cocos Islands anyone? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

FYI, Buaidh (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current events space/box[edit]

Just a thought/suggestion, would be nice if we had a spot on the mainpage for current events, so to say. It could include such things as current AfD/GA/FL/whatever nominations, articles needing immediate attention, the status of debates that have large implication for the project, et cetera. I feel like with all the different project spaces and associated talkpages we have a lot of things that could/need to get done get seemingly randomly distributed. Additionally, when there are megadebates being held on a particular issue (such as the current lead intro accreditation), the main point being made gets lost amidst all the verbiage and more casual readers don't even bother. I didn't know something needed to be done about the accreditation issue until Quiddity make a seperate subheading for it. The current events box could help fix all that. Just a thought. Minnecologies (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a project-page overhaul be agreeable? The visual presentation of this wikiproject is at odds with most other wikiprojects. I'd suggest drastically simplifying it, to be more like Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats.
We do have the very messy Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/open tasks subpage, but it isn't in a transcludable state, currently.
I'll try to give this more thought, tonight or tomorrow. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines/Archive_3&oldid=1088304866"