This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow. Sometimes Wikipedia really is just magical. I create a minimal list, go and have lunch, and now it's already five times the original size.
I'd like to make a suggestion, that we not include topics that are well-served by other lists. I know from experience with the List of mathematical topics page that if you're not careful with duplicating information, then the whole thing can spin out of control.
I would suggest we avoid overlap with these lists (except when it would be absurd not to):
Comments? Opinions? Random curse words? -- Walt Pohl 23:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No curse words, random or otherwise, from me -- thanks for starting it. I've done most of the work maintaining Lists of articles by category, which I like to think of as the mother of all the broad subject lists by subject. Eventually, I would like to see every article in Wikipedia to link here, or as least link to another list of lists (like Lists of people) that links here.
In order for all those lists to fit on one page, the lists would have to be very broad. If they were all about 100 items each like periodic table and landforms, it won't make it. However, periodic table probably belongs more to list of chemistry topics, and geologists should have the choice of adding it to their watch list separately.
Following the example of List of mathematical topics is fine as long as people observe the rule not to add articles that fall into one of the (currently) 30 subordinate lists, and when they create a new list, they remove those terms from List of mathematical topics. GUllman 02:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow. Sometimes Wikipedia really is just magical. I create a minimal list, go and have lunch, and now it's already five times the original size.
I'd like to make a suggestion, that we not include topics that are well-served by other lists. I know from experience with the List of mathematical topics page that if you're not careful with duplicating information, then the whole thing can spin out of control.
I would suggest we avoid overlap with these lists (except when it would be absurd not to):
Comments? Opinions? Random curse words? -- Walt Pohl 23:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No curse words, random or otherwise, from me -- thanks for starting it. I've done most of the work maintaining Lists of articles by category, which I like to think of as the mother of all the broad subject lists by subject. Eventually, I would like to see every article in Wikipedia to link here, or as least link to another list of lists (like Lists of people) that links here.
In order for all those lists to fit on one page, the lists would have to be very broad. If they were all about 100 items each like periodic table and landforms, it won't make it. However, periodic table probably belongs more to list of chemistry topics, and geologists should have the choice of adding it to their watch list separately.
Following the example of List of mathematical topics is fine as long as people observe the rule not to add articles that fall into one of the (currently) 30 subordinate lists, and when they create a new list, they remove those terms from List of mathematical topics. GUllman 02:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)