Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Archive 1

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

Hi[edit]

This is the place to discuss issues that pertain to all the lists of basic topics.

It is also the place to coordinate efforts on the maintenance and development of those lists.

Be sure to introduce yourself below, share your interests in this project, and feel free to ask any questions you might have.

I look forward to working with you.

The Transhumanist 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Up[edit]

I see several requests to "sign up below" but when I go "below" there is no "Sign up here." How does one sign up?

[edit]

Hi, I am a new user to Wikipedia. I have read through many articles and would like to move from using to editing. Would this project be a good place to start? --Bevandas 22:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We edit a specific type of list: basic topic lists. You may be more interested in editing standard articles. The good news is that these lists lead to a wide variety of articles for you to choose from to edit. Once you get used to editing articles, then it will be pretty easy for you to make the transition to editing lists. Good luck. To get started, see the page Welcome. The Transhumanist 06:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I like more than a list! Been working mostly at WP:TIJ but looking forward to do some work here. Just started the first basic list List of basic free software topics, which I hope to expand --Dex1337 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm concerned about all of these "List of Basic Topic" banners popping up everywhere, they are really cluttering and if you put them in a shell they do not have a title. Could you at least consider giving them a title so that they can be properly incorporated into shells?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you "give them a title" ? The Transhumanist 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the template and see if I can get it to work in a sandbox on my userspace and I'll get back to you. I'm pretty new to templates myself. The Banner Shell is simple, at least in usage. But that's another story for after the first issue. But tell me, what is the advantage to this "List of Basic Topics" over Wikipedia:Portals? Did you discuss this project somewhere before you started? I know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals are not policy, but it seemed like you just started unilaterally plastering banners everywhere, without any warning or discussion of the idea. Maybe I missed it though and I don't mean to be harsh, I just found it annoying - particularly when I found the banner wouldn't properly nest in a shell. In any case, I'll do what I can to help you fix that issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think retitling the project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic topics, and retitling the template Template:WikiProject Basic topics, might be the best way to go. If requested, I could probably even add assessment parameters to the template. Also, I think that this project would probably be helped immeasurably if it were to contact the various other extant WikiProjects and get their assistance in developing these lists. John Carter 13:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject notifications[edit]

Per this discussion I had with The Transhumanist, and John Carter's independant recommendation of the same above, I've left messages at all the relevant wikiproject talkpages I could find.

I also fixed the {{BT list coverage}} banners where I found it broken, though I agree that they are quite cluttering, and could possibly be removed in most instances, once the lists in question are added to the projects task/watchlists. --Quiddity 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Deletion of lists[edit]

Many of the lists have been deleted and now I have removed them completely. Kathleen.wright5 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the redlinked topics never existed in the first place. They're on the page for the very reason that those pages need to be created! To create a page for a redlink, simply click on the redlink.
Thank you for your input; it made me notice the lists were not very clear. I've updated them. Let me know if you find them hard to understand. The Transhumanist 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with portals and other concerns[edit]

I (and a few other editors) have raised various concerns with these "basic list" articles. I'll summarize/link to some of the various threads here.

I think there is some excellent potential for most of the material gathered in these lists, but I'm not comfortable with the current state of many of the lists. I hope something good comes out of it all, but I'm not sure what that will be, at this point. --Quiddity 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I'll try to cover each of the concerns above, point by point:

  1. Portals are modelled after the main page, and their primary purpose is to display exerpts of articles. In this respect they overlap with, that is, duplicate, articles. The core design of portals is duplication. The features of portals are for the most part auxillary in nature. Even so, in the whole set of portals, there is very little coverage of lists, let alone the content of basic topic lists. But there's no reason that lists couldn't nor shouldn't be excerpted on portals just like regular articles are. Some portals do have topic or article lists, but those instances are rare. I did some experimentation with lists on Portal:Food and Portal:Thinking, and came to the conclusion that topic lists would be better served on their own pages, rather than hide them exclusively on portal pages, which they tend to bloat (scaled down samples or excerpts are better) -- another approach would be to place links to lists on portals (and some portals already take this approach by providing a short list of its subject's main lists). If we were to assign portals as the exclusive place for a certain kind of lists, this would effectively bury those lists, and would remove their article status -- lists on portals don't show up on article searches. Lists in article space do show up in searches.
  2. The high-visibility issue that Quiddity mentioned above, he also raised as a concern with respect to adding the table of contents system to the main menu (on the sidebar). Quiddity wanted the system developed and refined first, and displayed only after it was much more complete, but that approach had created a catch 22 with respect to attracting people to the pages in order to help develop them -- it placed the burden of development on a very small number of editors. Fortunately, the consensus at the Village Pump was to increase visibility and access by adding "contents" to the main menu (and later it was added to the main page too) -- this was done in part to attract more editors to the various contents lists, who could in turn develop those lists. Provide access early, and development will follow. The alternative -- develop lists to completion and then display them -- runs counter to the standard development approach applied to articles in general on Wikipedia, and would restrict access to needed editors by making the lists harder to find. Articles are presented on lists and in categories, to support browsing, whether they are completed or not. Lists, including basic topic lists, are articles too and enjoy the same privileges as other articles. More importantly, lists present links to articles, so by increasing access to lists you also increase access to Wikipedia's articles. The all-or-nothing approach denies the benefit of partial browsing-access to a subject's topics, and to the list's incremental advancement. Access to a partial list of articles is better than no access at all. The only thing I'm concerned about with respect to incomplete lists, is the recruiting of editors to help complete them. And that's one purpose of this project.  ;-)
  3. The scope of the term "basic" has yet to be defined, but a quick survey of material on the web reveals that "Basic Geography" is a huge subject, so the growth of the page isn't uncalled for. And like other articles that grow large, it is likely that the page will be split up eventually. Currently, the List of basic geography topics is the only entry under the Geography section on the page called Lists of basic topics. Providing further lists for that section would be a good thing. Concerning the attainment of featured list status, see #5 below.
  4. Talk pages support the corresponding articles that they are adjacent to. Designating one article's talk page as a location to discuss a group of articles is awkward, as the standard place for such discussions is a WikiProject. Therefore, here we are. The two main issues discussed on the talk page Quiddity mentioned above were scope (which I just covered above), and to what namespace basic topic lists belong in. One argument that has been raised is that since basic topic lists contain self-references (to Wikipedia), that they be placed in the Wikipedia namespace. But all lists are self-referential Wikipedia constructs, by including the term "list" in their titles, which refers to a list on Wikipedia rather than to some list which exists out in the real world. The precedent of self-referentiality has been established for lists, and this applies to basic topic lists as well.
  5. The RfC discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages and lists of lists. Their eligibility for featured list status is being discussed at the featured list candidates departement. The folks over at FLC aren't going to grant featured list status without citing sources. One reviewer was very careful to point out that he wasn't concerned about their lack of sources with respect to their serving as browsing aids -- but that sources are needed for them to be featured lists. So they are not ineligible for featured status, they are just as eligible as articles are, and must meet the same standards. No problem.
  6. The ideal creation method for these lists, with respect to verifiability (for featured status approval), is to refer to and gather topics from (notable) basic treatments of the corresponding subjects, along with reference citations, in the first place. Such as introductory textbooks. Also, the education field has published standards for the curriculum of academic subjects, which present the concepts to be covered in courses on them, including introductory-level courses. But, with respect to building these lists for the purpose of providing access to material on Wikipedia, it is sufficient (and much faster) to browse Wikipedia and gather links from there. Key concepts are pretty obvious. List building is pretty much the same as article building, and probably all the same approaches apply.
I hope the above explanations have helped to bring you up to speed. The Transhumanist 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As best I understand this, each list should contain a lead section that clearly defines the scope of the list and the citation(s) used to define the scope. I think that meeting Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria should be the goal of any list. Basic is a particularly troublesome word, because it tends to depend on where the reader is coming from. If the scope of the list is clearly defined in the lead section, "basic" acquires a meaning within the context of the list. Can you propose some introductory textbooks or curricula to provide scope for each of the basic lists? --Busy Stubber (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other approach may be better[edit]

hello all, I see that this is a new wikiproject, aiming to improve access for non-experts to the wikipedia information. Although I agree that that may well be laudable, it gives me the impression that it tries to take over the activity of all the other WikiProjects instead of supporting or assisting them. For example, in wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, there is already a good List of chemistry topics as well as a portal:Chemistry, all created by contributors to the Chemistry wikiproject. A new list of basic topics in this field may be considered uncalled for. So, may I recommend that you support (rather than take over) the formation of List of topics in a certain field? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The list isn't new, and neither is the basic topic lists department. This WikiProject is new, created for the purpose of getting more people involved, etc. I posted notices to the corresponding WikiProjects, but I seem to have inadvertantly missed WikiProject Chemistry. My apologies. The Transhumanist 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of main topic articles[edit]

What is real purpose of this project, i.e. for whom is it designed ? The choice of the word "basic" suggests two possibilities:

  1. Basic, meaning a simplified overview, but surely this is as much as a main topic's main article will already do if it is not to wildly exceed 37kb suggested length limit (ie List of basic XXX topics probably already has a well written XXX article that links out to main concepts). As a case in point the List of basic education topics seems cover pretty much the same as Education, indeed is not List_of_basic_education_topics#Basic_education_concepts the same as Education#See_also ?
  2. Basic, meaning fundamental to a discipline. But surely that is the purpose of wikiprojects systematically assessing both the quality and the importance of articles, e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Education#Version_1.0_assessments

Finally the Category system also helps link articles into a hierarchy of linked material (and not even a fixed top-down system given that articles can have multiple categories). David Ruben Talk 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikiproject is all about maintaining, coordinating and standardizing the List of basic topics and its subordinate lists. I have heard many comments from people on how useful it is as an overview of the breadth, depth and subject concentrations of the articles in Wikipedia all on one page. The other overviews and the category system really do not provide this. Yes, it is self-referential, but I believe it should be the exception to the rule. I compiled the first Lists of articles by category because I believe every website should provide an overview of the site for its users. Yes, Wikipedia aims to provide neutral and even coverage of every subject under the sun, but it doesn't. Coverage is lumpy and it always has been. Five years ago, geeks had written tons of articles on math, computer science and Monty Python, while today, clicking on Random article shows a propensity of articles on geographic locations, television episodes, music albums, and biographies of actors and athletes. That's okay, because every encyclopedia is different, and we should simply be aware of it. Therefore, this page was designed for both the users and the editors who want to know which subjects are well-covered in Wikipedia and where coverage is currently lacking. GUllman 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So is this more as wishlist/checklist to ensure that the core articles in a topic exist - i.e. lists out the articles that should exist and anything red-linked then needs filling in ? Does this fully answer the issue of coverage that the main article of a topic should all in a mere 37kb (eg List of basic dentistry topics vs Dentistry which already has some redlinks, albeit I agree a different set to the List page) David Ruben Talk 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You can think of it as a wishlist/checklist. Categories cannot show articles and lists that do not yet exist; they can only link to existing articles. And editors do not like to see red links on article pages; if someone doesn't start writing an article soon enough, the red link gets deleted. This is how WP grew its articles on general academic subjects in its first years. But now, people believe lists have been replaced by categories, so most of the growth is on specific people, places and things, while articles on general fields are still left unwritten or with uneven coverage. GUllman 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody moved the page Lists of basic topics to Portal:Lists/basic topics[edit]

Should the main lists of the list-based contents system be in the main namespace with the rest of the lists? There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lists concerning the guideline contradiction at the heart of the conflict. The Transhumanist 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the original discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists of all the contents pages' proper namespace location. --Quiddity 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new list[edit]

Greetings! Please be aware of this new(ish) article List of basic radio topics, if you are not already. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", as they say (though this article need a *lot* of work on it!). Regards. --Malcolmxl5 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another new list[edit]

See List of basic human anatomy topics, and see if there's anything that's missing that you can fill in.

The Transhumanist 03:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation drive[edit]

Please pick a subject and create a basic topic list for it. Simply use the template {{BLT}} by typing this on a new page: {{subst:BLT|subject|Subject}}, where "subject" and "Subject" are the lower case and capitalized versions of the main topic the list is about. Then save the page, modify the heading skeleton to fit the subject, and fill it in with article links.

Pick your own subject, or choose from the list on the adjacent project page.

And above all, have fun.

The Transhumanist 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT#DIR and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before having TOO much fun :)) --Busy Stubber (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, these are outlines of encyclopedic subjects, not collections of trivia. But the line is hard to draw. For example, I was trying to come up with an example of a list that would not be appropriate, and off the top of my head I dreamed up List of basic nipple pinching techniques. Then I thought I'd better look it up to make sure it really doesn't exist, and found tit torture methods. So your guess is as good as mine, and probably better. According to WP:NOT#DIR, see Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for lists for clarification. So let me modify my previous statement... within the scope of Wikipedia, have fun! The Transhumanist 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget lead sections and Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view. As I suggested above, consider researching and recommending textbooks or course curricula to clarify the scope of each basic list's use of the word "basic" in the article title. --Busy Stubber (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added List of basic nuclear technology topics[edit]

Created List of basic nuclear technology topics from your list of lists to be made. Please review and update. Thanks. --Stefan talk 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A good addition to the collection. I've added some more links, and moved things around a bit. Your turn. The Transhumanist (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My crack at nanotechnology[edit]

Hi everyone — I guess you could say I'm a newly recruited participant. I had a crack at list of basic nanotechnology topics; critique/expansion is welcome. I suggest we give it a few days before putting the list items into columns, just to make editing easier. Best, — xDanielx T/C\R 09:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. The Transhumanist 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Index lists - RfC[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages[edit]

A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A basic topics list for human rights[edit]

I took the plunge and created a List of Basic Human Rights topics. I haven't filled in any article links yet; I will start that over the weekend, or if anyone else wants to jump in, by all means. I attempted to create the article in this WikiProject space by adding the code that Transhumanist gave at the top of the page. Nothing appears at the top of the page, but at the bottom it says, " Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics/Draft/." Is that where the notice is supposed to be? Did I do it right? Kathy (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished adding links for Branches of Human Rights. A couple of them don't have articles, but should have, in my opinion (marriage rights and elder rights). I did search under different names, especially for elder rights: senior citizen rights, senior rights, rights of elders, etc. But there was nothing. Kathy (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article space categories[edit]

Some of these articles have article space categories. Policy is the Wikipedia space articles should not be in article space. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, there are 150 topical outlines in article space and 17 "List of basic xxx topics" in article space. On one hand, they seem like original research. It would be easy enough to move them all to "Wikipedia: prefix" space. On the other, many math articles have no references and probably do not need many references. Lists are another area that lack references. Not every statement in an article needs a citation. Where there is or could be doubt, a citation should be provide. Topical outlines seem like lists for a topic whose structured information is inherent. That is, there may be little doubt of one arrangement vs. another so that no citations are needed. It seems hard to disagree with a topical outline where a citation would support one arrangement over another. The issue was raised at AfD several times Canada topics (keep), science topics (no consensus), foods (delete), industrial topics (keep), Management topics (keep), visual arts and design topics (delete). Attempts to make the outlines Featured lists were not well received. economics topics (failed), geography topics (failed), classical studies (failed). No one argued that the information did not belong in article space. Rather, they said the lists needed cites to make it to Featured status. -- Bebestbe (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death customs[edit]

Would you please create a List of basic death customs topics? See Category:Death customs. In particular, I'm looking for a topical outline for cemeteries but perhaps a broader topical outline (e.g., Death customs) is warranted. I am trying to get a handle on the land use category for cemeteries (see WikiProject Geography and think that a topical outline is a good way to go. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming dispute over one of the pages under this WikiProject[edit]

A couple editors are resisting the name change of List of basic opera topics to Topical outline of opera.

The entire set was renamed by consensus at the Village pump, but I'm not sure what to do about this conflict. How is consensus applied in this situation?

The Transhumanist 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country outlines[edit]

Why do the headings for many of the country outlines repeat the name of the country? In my opinion, it's unnecessary to do so. Is it for clarity? —Kal (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines/Archive_1&oldid=1142660163"