Wikipedia talk:List of encyclopedia topics

message: List_of_encyclopedia_topics/Biographies_A includes links in the format Surname, first name. If someone wants to create a series redirects in that form, he may want to use List of people by name for existing biographies (I could compile a list from that for upload). 
I'd appreciate if  would be included with the redirect. This allows to identify them easily later. -- User:Docu
*I see that many of the articles listed have now been created. Is it considered all right to delete the completed articles or is the complete list being kept for a reason? MK 04:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies

message: I proposed a bot to eliminate the easy redirects/disambig pages that need to be created on this list.  Some, like the counties, are fairly obvious and can be easily scripted, I think.  However, I think it comes down to whether orphan redirects are acceptable.  If they are, and if these should really be made, then I think the easy ones should be scripted.  If they're not OK, then I think that should be made clear on the main page ASAP because they seem to be a large segment of the articles to be made.  See Wikipedia talk:Bots for the outline of the script I'd like to make. CHL 04:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot to eliminate a lot of repetitive work on "List of [http://www.wikipedia.org encyclopedia] topics"?

message: I've created a little javascript program to automatically work out the overall percentage of the redirects done, based on the percentage of each page that is done.  Here's the link: .  It's geocities, by the way.  To use the program, just cut and paste the stats section of the page, that is the bit between where is say, and the last item on the list, including the percentage done of the 78th item (including % sign).  Paste that into the text box on the page i've linked to, then click 'findstat', and then a message box should pop-up giving the overall percentage finished.  I've checked this against Excel, and it matches, so I'm confident that the program works.  It uses Javascript, by the way.
Silverfish 15:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats program

message: As somebody else commented a while ago, it looks like some of the bio lists have articles on all the people. While it's possible that some of our bios are missing some bits that are here, random sampling seems to show that the list rarely if ever has any additional info. We don't really want or need them on backlink lists for articles. Is there any reason not to summarily delete (or blank?) the no-longer-useful lists? If no one speaks up, I might start doing that in the near future. Stan 19:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with deleting those not needed... but have found that many people name links don't go where you'd expect. I suggrest checking the link, and then 'what links here' to find new candidates for disambiguationn. I'll offer to help, FWIW, Lou I 23:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For this reason they should be kept for a while - once all biographies are done I will systematically varify all are correct and appropriate. Rather than simply deleting the list I could just remove the links :) --Oldak Quill 22:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting finished pages

message: Poll: The EB 2004 list should be first priority.    I've found it far more useful than the assembled terms listed on the main page. Anyone agree? Lotsofissues 10:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Pcb21| Pete 10:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. The original list is full of slang terms that can be deleted immediately, Enochian angels, which are simply moved to List of angels in Enochian, and computer viruses, which are moved to List of computer viruses, as well as redirects to various places. The 2004 list has serious content that needs to be covered. Danny 17:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  For example, there seems to be no wikipedia article on dry rot (a 2004 item taken at random).  There are tons of subjects that wp needs to cover that aren't getting attention right now, some of which have fairly substancial articles in EB 2004 --jacobolus (t) 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most useful list

message: Just cleaning the Wikipedia namespace here...is it OK to tag biography pages marked "Complete and Done" for deletion? -- Beland 00:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do. -- Beland 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK to delete completed biography pages? 

message: I know this is a bit premature as we are only 25% done, but we will be finished fairly soon (i estimate about 10 months or so), but Brittanica 2005 is out and no doubt contains lots more articles than 2004, and the online one must be updated all the time, is there any way to easily update our list? also, i know microsoft encarta probably isnt as good as brittanica, but i may be able to access a friends copy of encarta 2005, so is it worth trying to compile a list of the articles on it, even if just for completeness sake? Bluemoose 14:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can make the data available then I would be delighted. Get it online as soon as you can and then we (either as a group working on this project, or individually) can decide which list(s) to have a crack at/merge/whatever. Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other encyclopedia comparisons 

message: All of the Encarta links have been removed at Jimbo's request. Danny 13:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encarta

message: i have redirected Lola Cordova in the list to the french wiki. is this acceptable? have left the entry on the list, in case this is to be changed.  Doldrums 10:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against inter-language redirections Bluap 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Especially as the French article isn't in an encyclopedic style Bluap 12:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: is there guideline/policy about this? i dont speak french. if there is a problem with the redirection, pls consider taking appropriate action. Doldrums 12:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect to french wiki? 

message: What are the initials alongside quite a few of the entries for? Is somebody doing them, checking to see that they are valid or what?
Jackiespeel 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the lists

message: I'm reorganizing this list in the hopes to make it a little easier to use.  It will be close to the format of the Hotlist which I think is excellent.  Pages will be organized under letter rather than a number and will have mulitple letter pages e.g. A, A2, A3, B, B2.  Each page will start with 500 entries and be consolidated on an as needed basis.  I'm going to remove all existing blues from the list.  Additionally each page will have search capabilities, google search and a google search of wikipedia.  I could have used a template for the search but for only two search parameters I don't think it's necessary.  In the mean time, work on some of the other excellent projects while I try to clean this one up. Comments are appreciated. --Reflex Reaction 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a very useful change. The old format has worked perfectly well for years, and those of us working on this project are well used to it. Moreover the new format make it far harder to find a particular article or group of articles. If I want to find all the pages beginning with "Canada" I now have to sort through nine articles starting with the letter "C" to find the right one. - SimonP 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding Simon!  I've been thinking about doing the reorg when I tried navigating the project around I had no idea what each of the page numbers corresponeded to.  There was no way for me to know that Page 55 had topics from PH-PO, or that Page 42 covered LL-LO without going to the front page, but if it was reorganized I could find "Canada" pretty easily under "C" or "C2" from any page.  Even with letter with several pages like 'B' or 'S' should be easier to sort through and find an area when rearranged.  It would also eliminate some of the need to update the main project page so often, so  errors like this [which has been up since early October] would not happen and updating like this would not need to happen.  I was also using this as an opportunity to add searches to each of the entries to make redirecting or article creation a little bit easier.  But if none of this convinces you and no one else steps up to the plate to try to change your mind, I'm willing to defer because you have been active in the project for a while and I don't want to make editing difficult for you. --Reflex Reaction 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How about this: the subpages can be named A-Ae, Ae-Ag and Ag-Am instead of A2 and A3?  There would be some overlap between letters and require some moving of pages but the list has already been pruned pretty well so it wouldn't be so frequent while still making the navigation a bit easier.    --Reflex Reaction 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just rework  so that ranges rather than numbers are displayed? To me, That seems like a much simpler, and less disruptive, solution. - SimonP 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon, it sounds like you are satisfied with the current situation.  I don't actively work with this project and don't mind leaving it as it is but I thought a reorg would make it easier to work with but this appears not the case.  Happy editing and thanks for your comments.  I will revert most of my changes. --Reflex Reaction 15:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I do appreciate your effort, and I am sorry that it seems to have gone to waste. - SimonP 16:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I can't find any notes on where this list comes from, other than "various sources". My guess is that it is primarily an older English source, perhaps the 1911 edition of Brittanica? I'm led to this conclusion by the lengthy list of small English hamlets on the list. I started at the W's and have added on already, but now I'm thinking many of these should not be included because they are simply too small, and should instead simply be marked as such?
I'd like comments on this sooner if possible. I'm working my way back through the alphabet and plan on adding an article for everything that I can find any information on. I'd hate to spend time on article that are best left out (or deleted). 
Maury 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is an amalgam of a number of modern sources. We don't want to list exactly which were used because of copyright concerns. - SimonP 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A listing of topics is not copywritable. And if this really was a concern, don't use it, obviously. But no need to worry, after some poking about it's clear this is scraped from the Probert Encyclopaedia. Maury 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily English source? 

message: Some general notes that might come in handy:
# if it's a name and it has a middle initial, it's likely scraped from The Political Graveyard, and likely refers to some minor US politician. Many of these are of no note.
# if it's a name without a middle initial, it is most likely an actor scraped from one of the Probert lists. Most of these are "historical" (1970's and older?) and many are of little import.
# if it's a single-word name, it most likely a small town in England. I'm not sure what list these were scraped from. Many of these are *tiny* and perhaps should be removed.
# Latin names are scraped from another Probert list, and typically refer to species of insects.
Since many of these entries come from Probert, if you're having trouble tracking them down, simply add the word " Probert" to your Google search. That will typically make the "correct" item the first or second hit on the resulting list.
Most of the items on this list are not really suitable for the wiki, many fail notability. I recommend removing them en-mass.
Maury 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for other users