Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/topics redesign

message: Some material which is clearly health science related, most notably lists relating to psychology and psychiatry, are currenly grouped within the 'social sciences' section. Whilst psycology does have a place there, the sub-lists appear to be about disorders rather than behaviors (ie, more medical rather than social). I'd work on this myself, but I'm confused by the template being used - 'm not sure how to use it. LinaMishima 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is going to broken out into its own section, it should be made as wide as possible.  I suggest calling the section Health, and include everything on that subject.  --Nexus Seven 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Health Sciences 

message: Come to think of it, the various break-out sections should have placeholders in their umbrella fields.  That is, Geography, which is a physical science should have a "see Geography" pointer in the Physical science section, and History should have a "see History" pointer in the Social science section.  Where would the pointer for Health sciences  or Health be?  --Nexus Seven 23:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Social sciences", "physical sciences and nature"? LinaMishima 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing's wrong with "social sciences" and "nature", I was suggesting where pointers to Health sciences could go. Many of the current subtopics under psychology are actually more related to psychiatry, which is why I suggested that move elsewhere on this talk page. LinaMishima 02:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break-out sections 

message: I think this hypothetical page's title should be discussed first, with no decision made until we get much wider input. Wikipedia:Reference pages is a good candidate for being moved to Wikipedia:Contents too. 
There have been a lot of name changes of top level pages recently; maybe let's let the dust settle on those first. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: There was a comment that the template usage should be explained. I made the comma addition automatic for WP Contents heading. Please at least start social sciences. --gatoatigrado 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template usage 

message: Even though the "social sciences" section isn't done yet - before I spend more time I think it's finished enough for people to voice their opinions.
* for this page, but with modifications. Being the original editor, I know that there was a lot of redundant information, particularly links in the Lists of Topics that redirected to the Lists of Basic Topics. I think there are several good points of this page.
# flexibility - the template system allows us to change the look of the page at any time.
# at least two pages combined, maybe three with overviews (if that ends up being combined). Many lists of lists can be confusing.
# better wording - Bold article titles, with "Basic topics" under each one, is less ambiguous than "list of lists of lists"
: However I'll admit that there are several things that need to be modified.
# It needs to be alphabetized.
# See also links need to be integrated or deleted, although they do show some topics needing subtopic lists
# perhaps some long "more links" (see template description above) could be in a sublist. It's concise this way, but if it would improve readability the other way, it might be good. It could potentially cause rather focused lists to be more pronounced and not appear as under a general topic, but perhaps it could be a sublist using the  tags for clarification.
: If this doesn't work, I won't be offended. If it does fail, I sincerely hope that the improvements here can be carried into the existing pages. --gatoatigrado 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't an experiment in democracy; please provide a rationale. You can just say you agree with Nexus or parts of his opinions if you want. --gatoatigrado 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page was designed to eliminate redundant information. Personally (although your opinion is as valid as mine) I would rather see this page replace the others or be deleted. --gatoatigrado 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said before, or at least tried to, is that I like the other pages as they are. I don't find them redundant, but helpful. They give different sizes and formats for different purposes. Maurreen 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I redlinked those so I could see them.  I'm bluing them as fast as I can.  If you could tackle one or two, that would sure help.  --Nexus Seven 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. Have I mentioned that you're addicted to lists? ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As if being addicted to Wikipedia isn't bad enough.  :-)  --Nexus Seven 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  straw poll