This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Italic textOkeydoke; I know I'm just a newbie, but I'm gonna be bold and revert this back to a candidate to be moved to Wikitionary-- as it stands it's not even a full definition and I can't really see how it could be made encyclopaedic. And I really don't mean this personally, but Kappa, I'd just like to point out that the template for moving to wikitionary says: "If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message" (emphasis added). Simply deleting a request to move without attempting to expand the article strikes me as counterproductive; this article's been on the Cleanup list since the day it written with no significant alterations since then. I'm just trying to do my part to keep the place neat. ;-) Soundguy99 23:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"They both help the writer to organize her ideas."
I changed 'her' to 'his or her.' Many people believe that offering either gender when sex is unknown is cumbersome, so they agree to use the masculine pronoun. I prefer 'his or her' to keep things equal, but it really doesn't matter. Change it to masculine if you want. But leaving it as feminine makes it seem like all writers are female. -- Acetic Acid 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, GPHemseley filed a request for a third opinion [1] regarding the ongoing dispute over the tone. After reviewing the separate reversions and the edit summaries, I'm inclined to agree with GPHemseley's version. However, neither he nor Rmcmn have explained their reasoning on this talkpage and both users have failed to maintain civility. I have added the NPOV template because the entire "Outlining reports" section is someone's opinion stated as though it were fact. Whose opinion this is is unknown to me. DRK 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is more of a how-to article, which is common in encyclopedia articles about outlines. But a really good article would have historical information about the evolution of outlining styles. Presumably they arose in pedagogical circles, but that information would be interesting. Mark Foskey 13:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
the article is a disaster. It is also unreferenced. It should probably just be turned into a redirect to summary. -- dab (𒁳) 13:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Found in Category:Wikify_from_August_2007; Did what I could...Added WPBanners and flagged for needing attention. -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There was already a disambiguation page. This page should be moved back to Outline, as it is the main outline article.
There's no apparent reason to merge the article with "summary".
The Transhumanist 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
your article has no apparent basis in any reference cited. "Outline" is just another term for "rough summary". So outlines can be "hierarchical". How is this an article topic? The article's content seems to be restricted to like, you can use numbers or letters to arrange your hierarchical outline. How is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide. You should try wikibooks. -- dab (𒁳) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I also object to a merge. There is a clear distinction between an Abstract (summary) and an Outline (which have dedicated Outliner software). As the 3rd objector, I'll remove the merge tag. However, I would agree that there is potential for some sort of merge for these 3 articles - Summary, Executive summary, Précis - but that should be discussed elsewhere. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with distinguishing the two - "There is a clear distinction between an Abstract (summary) and an Outline". I was struck by this confusion upon first encountering this article. With 7 years of graduate school under my belt I have no doubt at all as to what an outline IS. It is not essentially a summary, but rather a concept analysis (in the sense of a breaking into pieces). It surely CAN be used as a summary, but that is using one thing to do another - a legitimate action, but not an argument for confusing or confabulating the two. I will leave resolution of this matter to others (for now, at least), as I have more critical issues to attend to at WP. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am amused, as someone who uses outlining a great deal, to find that the outline of this article on outlines seems to have been prepared by someone who does not know the subject. It is basic (taught in the USA from middle school - approx. grades 6-9 - on) that when an entry in an outline is divided there must be two or more division. One cannot divide anything into one. That's illogical. Ironically, this principle is stated in the article itself: "Note that each category above has at least two subcategories." This appears in the section on Alphanumeric outlines.
This is wrong:
A. 1. B. 1. 2.
Either of these corrections is right:
A. B. 1. 2.
OR...
A. 1. 2. B. 1. 2.
I found this article, on 2010.03.15, to contain two instances of a division of a heading into ONE subheading. Nonsense. So now we have "illiteracy", "innumeracy", and "illoutlineracy" - HA!
But not in this article, any longer.
Divide and conquer!
Reference: "Division - How do I accomplish this?" in Four Main Components for Effective Outlines
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There two different editions of the Chicago manual of Style referenced, which seems a bit silly. The 15th edition is reference in the first section and in "Outline organization", and the 14th edition is referenced in "Alphanumerically labeled hierarchical outlines". The references to the 15th edition were recently added by Tomcloyd. Since I don't have a copy of the 15th edition, it would be good if Tomcloyd or someone else could verify that the recommended style is the same in the 15th ed as in the 14th, and then update that last reference to just refer to the 15th ed. Rwessel ( talk) 03:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I updated it to the 16th. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Two very recent tag additions to the header of this article (by Verbal) lead me to comment:
What's needed - some sense of historical context or evolution - may not be possible. I do not yet know of secondary source material for the development of such a narrative. To suggest that the article is deficient because of lack of such content is a salient criticism only if such material exists but has not yet been referenced here. Let's execute - and document - a lit. search for this material, and post the result here. Whatever it is, the value of the article will be improved. I will personally commit to undertaking this little project sometime in August, after completing a few other tasks. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It also needs:
{{
citation needed}}
on the notion of repeating the entire sequence, including the upper-case Roman numerals, rather than having nesting begin with "A".Would it be helpful to list by name a few common outline styles a provide names where names exist?
Is "Harvard Outline" a common name for a style of outline? In Mac OS Pages software there is a style of Bullets & Lists called "Harvard". To me this is the standard outline format I used in American grade school.
Possible other style?
Forgive my ignorance on the issue - I really don't have much specific knowledge when it comes to outlining, though there was a style I picked up somewhere along the way. I have no idea if it's any organization or consortium's "official" style or if it's just something offbeat that I picked up from a professor in college.
Barring parentheses, italics, and similar alterations, I.A.1.a.i. seems fairly accepted, and it's the 6th level where everything starts getting muddy. As I said, somewhere in college, I picked up on the practice of using lowercase Greek letters. So it'd look something like this:
I. Major Heading
And so on.
I've never been able to find any reference to this style, but then again I probably don't know the best places to look when it comes to digging into technicalities like these. From a logical perspective I kind of like it, but I could see how impractical it could be due to these characters being less accessible than others as well as writers' unfamiliarity with the Greek alphabet. Any merit it to I.A.1.a.i.α. ? Or is it totally made up?
Patrick of J ( talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Italic textOkeydoke; I know I'm just a newbie, but I'm gonna be bold and revert this back to a candidate to be moved to Wikitionary-- as it stands it's not even a full definition and I can't really see how it could be made encyclopaedic. And I really don't mean this personally, but Kappa, I'd just like to point out that the template for moving to wikitionary says: "If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message" (emphasis added). Simply deleting a request to move without attempting to expand the article strikes me as counterproductive; this article's been on the Cleanup list since the day it written with no significant alterations since then. I'm just trying to do my part to keep the place neat. ;-) Soundguy99 23:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"They both help the writer to organize her ideas."
I changed 'her' to 'his or her.' Many people believe that offering either gender when sex is unknown is cumbersome, so they agree to use the masculine pronoun. I prefer 'his or her' to keep things equal, but it really doesn't matter. Change it to masculine if you want. But leaving it as feminine makes it seem like all writers are female. -- Acetic Acid 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, GPHemseley filed a request for a third opinion [1] regarding the ongoing dispute over the tone. After reviewing the separate reversions and the edit summaries, I'm inclined to agree with GPHemseley's version. However, neither he nor Rmcmn have explained their reasoning on this talkpage and both users have failed to maintain civility. I have added the NPOV template because the entire "Outlining reports" section is someone's opinion stated as though it were fact. Whose opinion this is is unknown to me. DRK 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is more of a how-to article, which is common in encyclopedia articles about outlines. But a really good article would have historical information about the evolution of outlining styles. Presumably they arose in pedagogical circles, but that information would be interesting. Mark Foskey 13:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
the article is a disaster. It is also unreferenced. It should probably just be turned into a redirect to summary. -- dab (𒁳) 13:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Found in Category:Wikify_from_August_2007; Did what I could...Added WPBanners and flagged for needing attention. -- Mjquin_id ( talk) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There was already a disambiguation page. This page should be moved back to Outline, as it is the main outline article.
There's no apparent reason to merge the article with "summary".
The Transhumanist 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
your article has no apparent basis in any reference cited. "Outline" is just another term for "rough summary". So outlines can be "hierarchical". How is this an article topic? The article's content seems to be restricted to like, you can use numbers or letters to arrange your hierarchical outline. How is this encyclopedic? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide. You should try wikibooks. -- dab (𒁳) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I also object to a merge. There is a clear distinction between an Abstract (summary) and an Outline (which have dedicated Outliner software). As the 3rd objector, I'll remove the merge tag. However, I would agree that there is potential for some sort of merge for these 3 articles - Summary, Executive summary, Précis - but that should be discussed elsewhere. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with distinguishing the two - "There is a clear distinction between an Abstract (summary) and an Outline". I was struck by this confusion upon first encountering this article. With 7 years of graduate school under my belt I have no doubt at all as to what an outline IS. It is not essentially a summary, but rather a concept analysis (in the sense of a breaking into pieces). It surely CAN be used as a summary, but that is using one thing to do another - a legitimate action, but not an argument for confusing or confabulating the two. I will leave resolution of this matter to others (for now, at least), as I have more critical issues to attend to at WP. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am amused, as someone who uses outlining a great deal, to find that the outline of this article on outlines seems to have been prepared by someone who does not know the subject. It is basic (taught in the USA from middle school - approx. grades 6-9 - on) that when an entry in an outline is divided there must be two or more division. One cannot divide anything into one. That's illogical. Ironically, this principle is stated in the article itself: "Note that each category above has at least two subcategories." This appears in the section on Alphanumeric outlines.
This is wrong:
A. 1. B. 1. 2.
Either of these corrections is right:
A. B. 1. 2.
OR...
A. 1. 2. B. 1. 2.
I found this article, on 2010.03.15, to contain two instances of a division of a heading into ONE subheading. Nonsense. So now we have "illiteracy", "innumeracy", and "illoutlineracy" - HA!
But not in this article, any longer.
Divide and conquer!
Reference: "Division - How do I accomplish this?" in Four Main Components for Effective Outlines
Tom Cloyd ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There two different editions of the Chicago manual of Style referenced, which seems a bit silly. The 15th edition is reference in the first section and in "Outline organization", and the 14th edition is referenced in "Alphanumerically labeled hierarchical outlines". The references to the 15th edition were recently added by Tomcloyd. Since I don't have a copy of the 15th edition, it would be good if Tomcloyd or someone else could verify that the recommended style is the same in the 15th ed as in the 14th, and then update that last reference to just refer to the 15th ed. Rwessel ( talk) 03:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I updated it to the 16th. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Two very recent tag additions to the header of this article (by Verbal) lead me to comment:
What's needed - some sense of historical context or evolution - may not be possible. I do not yet know of secondary source material for the development of such a narrative. To suggest that the article is deficient because of lack of such content is a salient criticism only if such material exists but has not yet been referenced here. Let's execute - and document - a lit. search for this material, and post the result here. Whatever it is, the value of the article will be improved. I will personally commit to undertaking this little project sometime in August, after completing a few other tasks. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It also needs:
{{
citation needed}}
on the notion of repeating the entire sequence, including the upper-case Roman numerals, rather than having nesting begin with "A".Would it be helpful to list by name a few common outline styles a provide names where names exist?
Is "Harvard Outline" a common name for a style of outline? In Mac OS Pages software there is a style of Bullets & Lists called "Harvard". To me this is the standard outline format I used in American grade school.
Possible other style?
Forgive my ignorance on the issue - I really don't have much specific knowledge when it comes to outlining, though there was a style I picked up somewhere along the way. I have no idea if it's any organization or consortium's "official" style or if it's just something offbeat that I picked up from a professor in college.
Barring parentheses, italics, and similar alterations, I.A.1.a.i. seems fairly accepted, and it's the 6th level where everything starts getting muddy. As I said, somewhere in college, I picked up on the practice of using lowercase Greek letters. So it'd look something like this:
I. Major Heading
And so on.
I've never been able to find any reference to this style, but then again I probably don't know the best places to look when it comes to digging into technicalities like these. From a logical perspective I kind of like it, but I could see how impractical it could be due to these characters being less accessible than others as well as writers' unfamiliarity with the Greek alphabet. Any merit it to I.A.1.a.i.α. ? Or is it totally made up?
Patrick of J ( talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)