Thanks to Quiddity for setting up this page. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Of the currently suggested solutions, I'd support 1, or 2, as the most beneficial/practical.
For Indexes alone, I'd hesitantly support option 5 (move to wikiproject space).
Possibly there are further alternative solutions? -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely oppose the moving / renaming / refocussing of this RfC from outlines to navigation in general. This is not what was agreed on, and gives a completely undeserved legitimacy to outlines. Please revert. Verbal chat 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity, you have a tendency to overcomplicate things. The discussion has such a large scope and so many threads that it would take years to iron out the matrix of issues you've presented. It is so convoluted that only die-hard editors would or could wade through it and make any sense of it. Only a handful of individuals on Wikipedia are fluent in the overall navigational system.
You've listed 3 problems applied to around 9 page types = 27 topics of discussion. (I see Categories, Books, and Templates lumped in there too).
You've positioned the RfC for failure from the start. With such a web of problems, you'll scare most editors away. What you'll wind up with is a conversation between 3 to 6 persons, perhaps enough to create a proposal for the community to vote on. Or perhaps a discussion in which you are endlessly explaining things to people or correcting their misconceptions. And because you've included outlines, you'll have to deal with the anti-outline rhetoric of User:Verbal in addition to everything else. :) Have fun.
Proposals that affect all of the navigation page types are doomed to failure, because you've included far too many factions, each with their own special interests.
Will you develop a proposal to move them all out of article space? Ratification won't happen. Can't happen - there will be far too much opposition.
Will you wind up proposing some big plan that treats each of the 9 file types with respect to the 3 problems for each? Every editor will likely object to some element of such a comprehensive plan.
See the KISS principle.
Even if your reason is to establish a precedent against a particular action, such as moving them to another namespace, by virtue of there being a failed proposal, it won't make any difference, because the convoluted plan will be unlikely to fail on any given point (out of so many), but will instead fail due to general lack of support (because it will be pushing so many angles at once). Therefore, no specific precedents (pertaining to specific file types) will be derivable from the outcome.
My advice is to pick the problem apart, and deal with each facet individually - on separate discussion pages.
Good luck.
The Transhumanist 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would assert that the types of page that could be called "navigational" are really link farms. I have had a look at the definition of linkfarm at WP:NOT, but the defintion seems puzzling, and I have raised this issue at WT:NOT. Do you think discussing this together with the Problems for discussion is appropriate, or is list inclusion (inclusion/notability) and list exclusion (content/WP:NOT) seperate issues? My view is that they different sides of the same coin, and discussing both together is a good idea. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
My two cents. They just offer so much more flexibility in terms of arrangment and organization of information, in a "human" form. "Search" is fine if you know what you're looking for, but actually it's missing the point. There are very many ways in which people navigate and searching is just one of them. Similarly for categories, which work in an entirely different way to navigational pages (not in humanly arrangable order; nav pages organize links while categories they actually organize articles; categories are very good for "eyeball search" and the display of all resources on a topic, while lists can highlight key resources; the lack of descriptions possible in a category*...) Personally I can't see the difference between the "index" and "outlines" systems and think the two ought to be brought together somehow.
In my opinion the big divides are (a) 'between "verifiable/objective" and "subjective/conceptual/creative" arrangements. The index and outline systems depend on editorial judgment to form what they feel is a conceptually coherent map of the most important articles in Wikipedia for a reader to introduce themselves to the topic with. However, while timelines serve a purpose as navigational pages in the sense that they can provide a series of links to various articles in an organized manner, that order is predertermined by the dates involved. Similarly something like "List of town in Idaho" or "List of birds of Australia" is objective; the list is useful for navigational purposes, but it's also (in the language of the 2002 "what is an article" discussion), almanac-like and editorial discretion is limited. Further, I would argue such lists are (b) lists of things not lists of articles - whereas the index/outline articles, as well as portals, are lists of articles not of things. This point is perhaps subtler, more subjective and maybe less useful than (a). But I think (a) and (b) taken together get to the heart of the problem. My feeling is that something that clearly i.e. under criteria (a) and (b) is "navigational" not "content", probably belongs outside the mainspace. It's a way of navigating the encyclopedia (like the index, micropedia or outline of knowledge in a physical encyclopedia) not part of the encyclopedia itself. I think Contents: or Index: is a possible namespace, or possibly as subpages or collapsed sections of a Portal: page.
(*By the way, I wrote something about the history of navigation pages, and also the extended means of navigation on other projects such as CZ - including their "definition" system, which comes close to producing a "Micropedia" effect, and which would allow annotation of automatically generated lists of articles such as those found from searches or from category contents/intersections. Do you think I should copy and paste, Quiddity? I know you felt they were fairly useful, and I don't think they're redundant to anything on this page so far.) TheGrappler ( talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This is my understanding of how categories and lists differ. Is my thinking realistic? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Quiddity for setting up this page. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Of the currently suggested solutions, I'd support 1, or 2, as the most beneficial/practical.
For Indexes alone, I'd hesitantly support option 5 (move to wikiproject space).
Possibly there are further alternative solutions? -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely oppose the moving / renaming / refocussing of this RfC from outlines to navigation in general. This is not what was agreed on, and gives a completely undeserved legitimacy to outlines. Please revert. Verbal chat 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Quiddity, you have a tendency to overcomplicate things. The discussion has such a large scope and so many threads that it would take years to iron out the matrix of issues you've presented. It is so convoluted that only die-hard editors would or could wade through it and make any sense of it. Only a handful of individuals on Wikipedia are fluent in the overall navigational system.
You've listed 3 problems applied to around 9 page types = 27 topics of discussion. (I see Categories, Books, and Templates lumped in there too).
You've positioned the RfC for failure from the start. With such a web of problems, you'll scare most editors away. What you'll wind up with is a conversation between 3 to 6 persons, perhaps enough to create a proposal for the community to vote on. Or perhaps a discussion in which you are endlessly explaining things to people or correcting their misconceptions. And because you've included outlines, you'll have to deal with the anti-outline rhetoric of User:Verbal in addition to everything else. :) Have fun.
Proposals that affect all of the navigation page types are doomed to failure, because you've included far too many factions, each with their own special interests.
Will you develop a proposal to move them all out of article space? Ratification won't happen. Can't happen - there will be far too much opposition.
Will you wind up proposing some big plan that treats each of the 9 file types with respect to the 3 problems for each? Every editor will likely object to some element of such a comprehensive plan.
See the KISS principle.
Even if your reason is to establish a precedent against a particular action, such as moving them to another namespace, by virtue of there being a failed proposal, it won't make any difference, because the convoluted plan will be unlikely to fail on any given point (out of so many), but will instead fail due to general lack of support (because it will be pushing so many angles at once). Therefore, no specific precedents (pertaining to specific file types) will be derivable from the outcome.
My advice is to pick the problem apart, and deal with each facet individually - on separate discussion pages.
Good luck.
The Transhumanist 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would assert that the types of page that could be called "navigational" are really link farms. I have had a look at the definition of linkfarm at WP:NOT, but the defintion seems puzzling, and I have raised this issue at WT:NOT. Do you think discussing this together with the Problems for discussion is appropriate, or is list inclusion (inclusion/notability) and list exclusion (content/WP:NOT) seperate issues? My view is that they different sides of the same coin, and discussing both together is a good idea. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
My two cents. They just offer so much more flexibility in terms of arrangment and organization of information, in a "human" form. "Search" is fine if you know what you're looking for, but actually it's missing the point. There are very many ways in which people navigate and searching is just one of them. Similarly for categories, which work in an entirely different way to navigational pages (not in humanly arrangable order; nav pages organize links while categories they actually organize articles; categories are very good for "eyeball search" and the display of all resources on a topic, while lists can highlight key resources; the lack of descriptions possible in a category*...) Personally I can't see the difference between the "index" and "outlines" systems and think the two ought to be brought together somehow.
In my opinion the big divides are (a) 'between "verifiable/objective" and "subjective/conceptual/creative" arrangements. The index and outline systems depend on editorial judgment to form what they feel is a conceptually coherent map of the most important articles in Wikipedia for a reader to introduce themselves to the topic with. However, while timelines serve a purpose as navigational pages in the sense that they can provide a series of links to various articles in an organized manner, that order is predertermined by the dates involved. Similarly something like "List of town in Idaho" or "List of birds of Australia" is objective; the list is useful for navigational purposes, but it's also (in the language of the 2002 "what is an article" discussion), almanac-like and editorial discretion is limited. Further, I would argue such lists are (b) lists of things not lists of articles - whereas the index/outline articles, as well as portals, are lists of articles not of things. This point is perhaps subtler, more subjective and maybe less useful than (a). But I think (a) and (b) taken together get to the heart of the problem. My feeling is that something that clearly i.e. under criteria (a) and (b) is "navigational" not "content", probably belongs outside the mainspace. It's a way of navigating the encyclopedia (like the index, micropedia or outline of knowledge in a physical encyclopedia) not part of the encyclopedia itself. I think Contents: or Index: is a possible namespace, or possibly as subpages or collapsed sections of a Portal: page.
(*By the way, I wrote something about the history of navigation pages, and also the extended means of navigation on other projects such as CZ - including their "definition" system, which comes close to producing a "Micropedia" effect, and which would allow annotation of automatically generated lists of articles such as those found from searches or from category contents/intersections. Do you think I should copy and paste, Quiddity? I know you felt they were fairly useful, and I don't think they're redundant to anything on this page so far.) TheGrappler ( talk) 20:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This is my understanding of how categories and lists differ. Is my thinking realistic? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)