Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents/Archive 3

message: What would be the value of moving some or all of this page, conceptually speaking, to a new section of the Community Portal.  Of course, I assume some additional organizing and clean-up would be required first. Rfrisbietalk 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community portal pertains to the administrative side of Wikipedia: the Wikipedia community, and specifically does not serve as a navigation aid to the encyclopedia proper.  Navigation of the encyclopedia is covered in the help system.  A bare-bones version of this page is included in the help system at Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia, and a link to here is included there also.  --The Transhumanist 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yah, it doesnt really fit into the mandate of the CP: it's not a task or a group or news. --Quiddity 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to get a link to here added to the new sidebar design, so that this page would always be one-click away no matter where you were on wikipedia, but the idea was rejected.  The portals page and categories page were accepted, and a fairly prominent link to here is presented in the footer of both those pages.  --The Transhumanist 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just going off of the intro paragraph, for the CP. I don't know of any site-wide plan for the high-level pages; they are each a kingdom unto themselves, in essence, at present. --Quiddity 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Portal section 

message: *Do we need or want an enforced (through identical TOCs) selection of top-topic headings?  If so, how do we decide what gets included?  If not, how do we decide what headings to use on each page?
Here are the Portal:Browse headings vs. the Portal:List headings.
;Original
*Arts and Culture
*History
*Geography
*Philosophy and Religion
*Science and Mathematics
*Society and People
*Sports and Games
*Technology	
;New
*Reference
*Art and culture
*Geography and places
*History and events
*Mathematics and abstractions
*Natural sciences and nature
*People and self
*Philosophy
*Religion and spirituality
*Social sciences and society
*Technology and applied sciences
I prefer the original headings/groupings for use on the portals listing page, and the same for the categorical index (see: the old wikipedia:browse design). If any of the sections get too big, they can be split apart further, but there is no current need (on those 2 pages). 
The same principle goes for each of the reference pages, and I think an adaptive approach at each page would be the most appropriate: eg the "People and self" section is tiny on every page except Lists of lists. I think it should be merged back into the "Society" section. Ditto for "Religion" with "Philosophy" on most of the pages. On the other hand, on many pages it's clearly beneficial to seperate certain groups, like math from science (though again, not at the portal list). 
Hopefully that clearly covers what I'm asking and suggesting. --Quiddity 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there are too many content differences to force TOCs into a common template format.  They could have a common style like the template, but the specifics should vary to have reasonable amounts of content in each section. Rfrisbietalk 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections or topic headings 

message: Wikipedia:Categorical index.  This list is being used as a crutch by the category system.  I think the category system should stand on its own -- with a single link on the sidebar leading to the top-most category in the category system. --The Transhumanist 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's linked off the main page, and I don't think it's likely to be deprecated anytime soon. In fact the same argument applies as at List of basic topics: if we don't link it, even less people will try to fix it! As chaotic as the category system is, many people like and use it. --Quiddity 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument isn't against the category system, but against the "categories" page.  Traffic should be routed directly to the category top end, not to a redundant mirror of it.  The link shouldn't be removed from the main page, simply rerouted to the top category, either directly or through a redirect.  And once there, users can fix the category system's top end, rather than skip it (which is what the categories page is causing them to do).  --The Transhumanist 21:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doensn't have a real top-end, because it's a web of connections, rather than a hierarchical tree. Hence the Categories page. --Quiddity 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the category system is a network, with its own main pages.  See: :Category:Categories and :Category:Fundamental.  --The Transhumanist 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them hundreds of times. What's your point? My point is different people process information in different ways, and unnecessarily restricting access is inappropriate to a universal resource. Rfrisbietalk 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no restriction of access if the category system is itself implemented properly.  My point is that something is screwed up with it if it requires a list as an interface.  The entry points to the category system within the category system should be fixed.  --The Transhumanist 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I frequently do the same thing, and it's a lot more convenient with the "expandable" subcats. However, I will say it's probably not all that "simple" for a newcomer to get around that way. On the other hand, trying to navigate the "contents" isn't a cakewalk either. Rfrisbietalk 01:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most redundant list of them all... 

message: :If it is to be done, it should be done properly, based on a examination of the existing content and links. For a system as large as WP, a formal ontological analysis is necessary and appropriate, but will take several years. There is at present in WP several competing classification netweorks: first the cateogories, second the contents pages, and third the portals--with the portals clearly having been introduced as a less formal alternative. I do not think any of them works well: the categories were too hastily designed and then incompletely implemented. The contents pages overlap to a large extent, and are even less completely implemented; the portals are still only selective. 
:I would be the first to agree it should be done over, and I, like Rfrisbie, am perfectly willing to design one on the basis of my own image of WP--or on our joint one, if they prove compatible. If we are genuises at it, as Melville Dewey was a genius, it might be generally useful. Even so, it would probably add to the confusion, unless it were implemented to replace the current systems. Given the nature of WP, that is not goingto happen. I, like perhaps others, am beginning to build up my own private classification of the page I use--this is a finite task because I only add pages as I need them. and do not have to provide for anything that does not interest me. 
:True, the nature of a database system is that it can accomodate any number of classifications without the least confusion. This is not however true of the humans who use it--we cannot think in 4 different intellectual dimensions at the same time.DGG 06:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, it's not worth it.  I agree.  We have our hands full already.  --The Transhumanist 10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopting a new system was never suggested. --Quiddity 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;what is involved in adopting a new system

message: We're trying to clarify what the pages already here are to be used for. Here's how I understand the hierarchy of this system:
Contents | Overview (Basic topics • Topics) | Fields | Glossaries | Lists of lists (Tables) | Portals | Categorical index | A-Z index
Should be self-explanatory. And I would suggest the above as an update for the , which is currently was:
Contents | Basic topics | Topics | Fields | Glossaries | Lists of lists | Overview | Portals | Tables | A-Z index | Categorical index
and is currently:
Contents | Basic topics | Topics | Lists of lists | Tables | Fields | Glossaries | Overview | Portals | Categories
Then all content is divided up in relatively obvious ways. eg
:Overview: Psychology (Basic topics: List of basic psychology topics · Topics: List of psychology topics) | Field: Psychology | Glossary: (none) | Lists of lists: List of psychology topic lists (Tables: (problem here)) | Portal: Portal:Psychology | Category: :Category:Psychology
The only problem I can see, is with List of reference tables. That  originally seems to have been where lists got listed, then when there were enough of them for a new master-list page, like List of timelines, those get split-off. So it just needs a thorough check and split effort. --Quiddity 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a cleanup activity of a wiki. It's never going to have a conceptually tight classification system across the board, but it can be incrementally improved to the point where it can be added to the Main Page and sidebar. That's a modest enough objective that is doable. I support the revised header bar, assuming "featured pages" are added to the footer. Rfrisbietalk 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-pages hierarchy and purposes

message: I added a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. Most replies probably will be listed there. Rfrisbietalk 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't bite, but suggested I go to the Village pump. So, I just invited them over here and added the same request at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. I'm going to put something at CBB too. Rfrisbietalk 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'll see if I can help stir things up. --The Transhumanist 08:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request for feedback 

message: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:WikiProject Reference pages. Rfrisbietalk 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename cat 

message: Someone keeps removing the "Contents" from the Portal:list TOC. That looks better to me too, but I'd like to have all the TOCs use the same style as well. Any objections to removing the tile from all the other pages too? Rfrisbietalk 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went one further and carried it through the rest of the pages.  (Was doing some clean up on this account's pages, and forgot what account I was logged in under.  Man I hate that.)  --Ooga Booga 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me. --Quiddity 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC titles 

message: I believe the items in Template:Contents pages (header bar) should follow the basic order of this page's sections.  If that order doesn't work for the template, then it doesn't work for this page either.  At this point, I hope any further reorderings of items are proposed and supported here first. Rfrisbietalk 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Contents pages (header bar) – item order 

message: Just tangentially, If there are any better arrow icons, I'd love to replace the blue back-arrow in  with something a bit less flashy.. --Quiddity 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More? Yes! Less flashy? You make the call. Commons:Category:Arrows Rfrisbietalk 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed to the slightly less distracting nuvola :Image:Start.png, though perhaps we should use the upward/top-facing :Image:Nuvola actions top.png icon instead? --Quiddity 09:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have more of a pointing left = "back to Help" metaphor going than a pointing up = "up to Help" metaphor. It's close enough for me as is. Rfrisbietalk 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, everything 'round here tends to use the <-- Back and --> forward concept. Less confusing if you don't change it for this project. ---J.S (t|c) 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help contents back

message: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15#Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbietalk 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename [[:Category:Glossaries]]? 

message: I've made just such a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#It's time for a new namespace: "Contents:".    --The Transhumanist 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My back is to this face. I don't see the need. Rfrisbietalk 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A slightly odd way of putting it.  Sort of a nose in the air type of response. *shrugs* --The Transhumanist 07:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded in kind to your heading, which is patronizing. You tend to portray opinion as fact. Expect to get back what you put out. Rfrisbietalk 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's face it, we need a new namespace 

message: Is there a way to get a list of all the lists on Wikipedia without redirects?  --The Transhumanist 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. --Quiddity 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many lists are on Wikipedia, not including redirects? 

message: Here's an example of a contents page footer nav box by a "type" of page (portals) . Maybe something like this also could apply to other types, e.g., glossaries and ...? When present on a contents page, users can browse more contents, or more in-depth aspects of a type of page. Rfrisbietalk 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what links you would use in a glossaries navbox? Would the category link not cover everything? Or do you mean more of a series box ("in-depth aspects"), than a navbox? --Quiddity 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-referenced footer nav boxes 

message: There's an argument over how lists of lists should be named.  See Talk:List of regional bird lists.     The Transhumanist     02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List naming issue 

message: A user has been trying to remove all of the glossary pages to Wictionary.  I expressed my opposition at Category talk:Glossaries.  Also, I'll help add links from the category that aren't on the list. Rfrisbietalk 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added all missing terms from the main glossary category to the list, so I reinserted the link. I'll go through the subcats next. Rfrisbietalk 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff :) --Quiddity 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "subcats" went bye-bye, but I looked through :Category:Terminology anyway and added a few more "glossaries." My work here is done. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossaries 

message: I removed all "list" red links I could find on "contents" pages under the same principle as :Category:Portals under construction.  Any type of "contents compilation" page such as these should be developed before they are added to a higher-order contents page. Red links should be reserved for topical lists that help to identify needed articles, such as at List of academic disciplines. Rfrisbietalk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to do the same for the stub lists linked from Lists of basic topics. Transhumanist's to-do list is already available on the list's talkpage, where any editor can find it and use it to contribute. --Quiddity 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Transhumanist: Preemptive plea - Please please cleanup the many linked-lists that are remaining, before adding back any of the stub-lists. Thanks. -Quiddity 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just noticing the navbar order doesn't match the Contents order again. Using different words for the same page doesn't help. Do you want to try to match orders again? If so, go for it. Rfrisbietalk 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. I'm going to split the lists apart from the overviews again, but I'll put them above glossaries to keep Tranhumanist happy :) I added in the lists of countries and people to. --Quiddity 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Empty stubs were removed, unsolved problem lists were duplicated at Overviews, thought lists were duplicated at lists of thinking-related topics, and parapsychology was removed because I refuse to promote ignorance ;). I don't know why I left the non-basic geography lists, they should all be removed too, as are duplicated at lists of topics. Which brings me to my suggestion... --Quiddity 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists "under construction" (at best) not for "contents" pages 

message: :If we used the style of Lists of topics#History and events, with the basic topic list as the root of a branch (and bold), we could merge those 2 topic list pages quite nicely. That would eliminate the redundancy problems, it would be a more centralized topic list and so gather more eyeballs/editors, and would be less confusing for a reader (hopefully). What do you think? --Quiddity 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it so! :-) Rfrisbietalk 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: As Transhumanist says above "This is a problem where the target lists are indices and not tables of contents, which may call for a rename of those to Index of ____ topics.  Like the one on mathematics and the one on psychology.". 
I agree, and propose we rename these as we find them. --Quiddity 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone somewhere once said, maybe, "There's no such thing as a table of contents for Wikipedia as a whole because it doesn't have page numbers." I tend to agree. Personally, I oppose renaming anything of the form, "List of X topics." They are lists and they are of "topics" – "article names" in common wikilingo. They should be categorized as :Category:Lists of terms, not "lists of indices." :Category:Lists is top level, nothing for indices. Wikipedia distinguishes Categories, lists, and series boxes. Indices are not part of the mix.  The lists we link to from contents pages might be arranged by subject or alphabetically, they might be of articles, lists, portals, or categories. The complementary unstated assertion is that "any list organized by subject is a table of contents" does not hold. Changing the name of alpha-sorted "List of X topics" to "Index of X topics" would have wide-ranging implications of list classifications throughout Wikipedia and should not be undertaken without a broadly based consensus. Rfrisbietalk 22:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Topics and articles are not the same thing.  A list of topics can have topics listed that don't (and might not for months or years, or ever) have an article of their own.  And many lists don't even refer to their contents as topics, when the type of item listed will do.  A list of dogs for instance.   The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Table of contents" and "Index" refer to the format of the page.  But both imply linking to articles in Wikipedia, while a list can be of anything (including non-articles).  Redlinks are irrelevant, because on an index they simply refer to planned articles, and therefore are appropriat on an index (as planned or requested articles, they are appropriate just about anywhere).   The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  We wouldn't have "lists of indices", rather an "index of indices", or a master index.   The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  But for those pages which "index" fits more accurately than "list", a rename is appropriate.  I agree with Quiddity with one reservation:  that consensus be acquired on a specific page when a unilateral move like that may offend the caretakers of the page.  The caretakers of the mathematics lists for instance, have been in ongoing discussions on what to name their lists.  It wouldn't be appropriate to steamroll those discussions and do a rename directly.   The Transhumanist   22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the whole idea should be run past the folks at Wikipedia talk:List guideline. --Quiddity 02:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of indices pages 

message: See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page
 The Transhumanist   21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to place one or more of these pages' links on the Main Page 

message: He is born in Gujarat, brought up in Secunderabad,AP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maheshprabhugp (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, this page is intended for discussion of the Wikipedia:Contents page, and this is probably not the right place for your comment. If you are commenting on or suggesting changes to a particular article, you should do so on the article's discussion page (go to the article and click the 'discussion' tab). You can get answers to questions about how to use Wikipedia at the Help Desk, and other questions at the Reference Desk. Thanks – Gurch 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jatin Vasa 

message: Has the contents page always been editable...? Michaelritchie200 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. --Quiddity 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editable

message: i dont know what to talk about i just want to test this web page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sodaman (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked. In future, use this page for testing – Gurch 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: How do you create a page from nothing? Ie if you want to add an article. – Squire101 02:47, 26 April 2007 
: Help:Starting a new page – Gurch 10:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Category:Radioactive waste for more info on this.  However I don't think this was the right page to ask this.  Jackaranga 11:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: ok..this may seem very strange, but how do you talk to other users? if someone could maybe just teach me, i would be thankful! >.< Ikeyko 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on User talk:Ikeyko – Gurch 06:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from [[User:Ikeyko|Ikeyko]] 

message: Vandalism reported at WP:AIV. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism