![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
List names have been standardized. They now use the actual (noun) name of the subject - no adjectival forms like "architectural". This ensures the titles will turn up in subject searches entered in the search box.
A heading skeleton has been added to all of the basic lists. The skeleton doesn't fit every subject perfectly and merely provides a starting point. An introductory paragraph (known as the "lead section"), which defines the list's subject, has been added to many of the lists. The skeleton has been fleshed out for about half the lists.
I'd say that was a major hacking. Quiddity, you seem to be having trouble with the consensus/be bold dichotomy. Basically, being bold is reserved for when you can reasonably expect there to be no opposition nor objections. For a change that is likely to get opposition, which you should have expected here, consensus-building applies.
Your recent changes lack consensus. I've reverted the page to the more useful version. The topics on the page are pretty basic, even if they don't have "basic" in the title. Creating standard format pages for them all isn't practical, so we should fill in the gaps the best we can. -- The Transhumanist 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the edit warring? I've checked the links, and almost all of the ones you removed are to lists. I found one category and a couple articles with lists in them. I'll fix those links. -- The Transhumanist 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's go for a working definition. Right now, it appears to be, "Below are lists of fundamental concepts for major subject areas. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with the respective areas." I see one way to operationalize this would be to say,
Rfrisbie talk 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Or to use the list you just made as an example, and the List of basic topics intro:
List of online dictionaries is not a "list of fundamental concepts for [a] major subject area". --
Quiddity
03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this list collection no longer basic? If it isn't, then we need to figure out what to rename it. It's a pretty useful resource, and it would be a shame to dismantle it. No doubt it belongs somewhere in the reference system. -- The Transhumanist 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Pejorative replies are counter-productive. I've made my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Rfrisbie talk 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of all the red links here? It's not like a project is likely to be using them to create basic topics lists. I'm going to delete them. If you revert, please explain here. Rfrisbie talk 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course there's more to it than just substituting the {{ BLT}} (Basic List Template). Enough links need to be provided to provide the basis for a starting point. The headings in the BLT don't always match context, so those sometimes need to be changed. Same for the auto-generated links - sometimes the real articles are named something else. But these still aren't quite enough...
Do you know how to use Google to do Wikipedia-specific searches? The advanced search feature of Google rocks, and speeds up the search for relevant links incredibly. Some pointers: set the search results to 100. Set "Occurrences" to "in the title of the page". Set domain to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. And use the "-" symbol in the search field to weed out categories and such, like this: -category -template -ziggurat etc. The Transhumanist 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to mention...
...it's fun!
The Transhumanist 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
One way to address the article quality issue is to color code the links on the lists. Red of course means they are empty and need attention right away. Bright blue means the content of a link is sparse and also needs work. A normal link is relatively complete, and users who are here primarily to read will quickly learn to avoid bright blue and click on normal links. Serious editors on the other hand would be attracted to bright blue and would seek them out to lend Wikipedia a helping hand by bringing those pages up to par. This system is in operation on the page Lists of basic topics. I've found it invaluable for directing my efforts on those lists, as it prevents me from having to check each list manually to find the ones that need work. Jump in and lend a hand and help build those lists. Thanks. -- The Transhumanist 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The "best" way Wikipedia tracks article quality is through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team — Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. That's what I was trying to reflect in my addition of a new section. That's the only place on this contents page Wikipedia can justifiably claim some level of quality articles. All the other links here that "in turn link to all the rest" of the 6,852,378 articles are of unproven quality. Full and frank disclosure would include all of these links on the top-level Contents page, but it also would clearly notify the reader that not all articles meet Wikipedia's established peer review quality standards. Rfrisbie talk 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To see how it would look, I've added a backlink in the following basic lists: Culture, Classics, and Cooking; leading to their parent page ( Lists of basic topics). Looks pretty good, though I thought I'd better seek consensus before investing a lot of time on changes that might be blanket-reverted. The basic list collection is a 2-tier structure like Help:Contents, and they are reference pages, so it makes perfect sense. But I'll leave it up to you guys. The Transhumanist 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:List of basic topics? Surely this is not article content, and hence should be in the Wikipedia namespace? What am I missing? — D a niel (‽) 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article... it should really be in the portal: namespace, similar to Portal:Current events and so on. -- W.marsh 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted Grutness's addition of non–basic-topic-lists. I almost moved the single geography link to being a part of the #Natural sciences and nature section, but then thought it'd be better left for possible proper expansion with new sublists, or even itself be split into sub-lists.
I'll try to get around to writing a short notice for all the relevant wikiprojects soon, to let them know that these lists exist, so that they can help build and maintain. — Quiddity 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering why the mathematics section is headed "Mathematics and abstractions". As far as I can see, all of the lists linked from this section are sub-topics of mathematics, so why not just head the section "Mathematics" ? Why is the "abstractions" bit needed ? Gandalf61 09:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Transhumanist! I'll help if I can, but what exactly do you need help with? I'll follow if you'll lead. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The philosophy list seems a bit strange. Why do humanism and transhumanism get there own categories (apart from Philosophical -ism which is already listed)? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was this page moved without a discussion on this talk page? At the very least, a notice linking to the discussion -- a discussion taking place on an official forum rather than in the backwoods on someone's talk page -- should have been posted here.
A guideline can't override a guideline. The list guideline clearly sets forth that lists are a type of article. This list qualifies as the type of list known as a "structured list" and "table of contents". I just checked the list guideline, and tables of contents are specifically covered on there. I had completely forgotten about that. This page should be moved back to the main namespace, where it has been located for a very long time, and which is supported by the list guideline. The Transhumanist 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. -- Quiddity 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
List names have been standardized. They now use the actual (noun) name of the subject - no adjectival forms like "architectural". This ensures the titles will turn up in subject searches entered in the search box.
A heading skeleton has been added to all of the basic lists. The skeleton doesn't fit every subject perfectly and merely provides a starting point. An introductory paragraph (known as the "lead section"), which defines the list's subject, has been added to many of the lists. The skeleton has been fleshed out for about half the lists.
I'd say that was a major hacking. Quiddity, you seem to be having trouble with the consensus/be bold dichotomy. Basically, being bold is reserved for when you can reasonably expect there to be no opposition nor objections. For a change that is likely to get opposition, which you should have expected here, consensus-building applies.
Your recent changes lack consensus. I've reverted the page to the more useful version. The topics on the page are pretty basic, even if they don't have "basic" in the title. Creating standard format pages for them all isn't practical, so we should fill in the gaps the best we can. -- The Transhumanist 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the edit warring? I've checked the links, and almost all of the ones you removed are to lists. I found one category and a couple articles with lists in them. I'll fix those links. -- The Transhumanist 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's go for a working definition. Right now, it appears to be, "Below are lists of fundamental concepts for major subject areas. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with the respective areas." I see one way to operationalize this would be to say,
Rfrisbie talk 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Or to use the list you just made as an example, and the List of basic topics intro:
List of online dictionaries is not a "list of fundamental concepts for [a] major subject area". --
Quiddity
03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this list collection no longer basic? If it isn't, then we need to figure out what to rename it. It's a pretty useful resource, and it would be a shame to dismantle it. No doubt it belongs somewhere in the reference system. -- The Transhumanist 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Pejorative replies are counter-productive. I've made my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Rfrisbie talk 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of all the red links here? It's not like a project is likely to be using them to create basic topics lists. I'm going to delete them. If you revert, please explain here. Rfrisbie talk 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course there's more to it than just substituting the {{ BLT}} (Basic List Template). Enough links need to be provided to provide the basis for a starting point. The headings in the BLT don't always match context, so those sometimes need to be changed. Same for the auto-generated links - sometimes the real articles are named something else. But these still aren't quite enough...
Do you know how to use Google to do Wikipedia-specific searches? The advanced search feature of Google rocks, and speeds up the search for relevant links incredibly. Some pointers: set the search results to 100. Set "Occurrences" to "in the title of the page". Set domain to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. And use the "-" symbol in the search field to weed out categories and such, like this: -category -template -ziggurat etc. The Transhumanist 05:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to mention...
...it's fun!
The Transhumanist 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
One way to address the article quality issue is to color code the links on the lists. Red of course means they are empty and need attention right away. Bright blue means the content of a link is sparse and also needs work. A normal link is relatively complete, and users who are here primarily to read will quickly learn to avoid bright blue and click on normal links. Serious editors on the other hand would be attracted to bright blue and would seek them out to lend Wikipedia a helping hand by bringing those pages up to par. This system is in operation on the page Lists of basic topics. I've found it invaluable for directing my efforts on those lists, as it prevents me from having to check each list manually to find the ones that need work. Jump in and lend a hand and help build those lists. Thanks. -- The Transhumanist 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The "best" way Wikipedia tracks article quality is through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team — Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. That's what I was trying to reflect in my addition of a new section. That's the only place on this contents page Wikipedia can justifiably claim some level of quality articles. All the other links here that "in turn link to all the rest" of the 6,852,378 articles are of unproven quality. Full and frank disclosure would include all of these links on the top-level Contents page, but it also would clearly notify the reader that not all articles meet Wikipedia's established peer review quality standards. Rfrisbie talk 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
To see how it would look, I've added a backlink in the following basic lists: Culture, Classics, and Cooking; leading to their parent page ( Lists of basic topics). Looks pretty good, though I thought I'd better seek consensus before investing a lot of time on changes that might be blanket-reverted. The basic list collection is a 2-tier structure like Help:Contents, and they are reference pages, so it makes perfect sense. But I'll leave it up to you guys. The Transhumanist 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:List of basic topics? Surely this is not article content, and hence should be in the Wikipedia namespace? What am I missing? — D a niel (‽) 18:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an article... it should really be in the portal: namespace, similar to Portal:Current events and so on. -- W.marsh 17:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted Grutness's addition of non–basic-topic-lists. I almost moved the single geography link to being a part of the #Natural sciences and nature section, but then thought it'd be better left for possible proper expansion with new sublists, or even itself be split into sub-lists.
I'll try to get around to writing a short notice for all the relevant wikiprojects soon, to let them know that these lists exist, so that they can help build and maintain. — Quiddity 02:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering why the mathematics section is headed "Mathematics and abstractions". As far as I can see, all of the lists linked from this section are sub-topics of mathematics, so why not just head the section "Mathematics" ? Why is the "abstractions" bit needed ? Gandalf61 09:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Transhumanist! I'll help if I can, but what exactly do you need help with? I'll follow if you'll lead. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The philosophy list seems a bit strange. Why do humanism and transhumanism get there own categories (apart from Philosophical -ism which is already listed)? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was this page moved without a discussion on this talk page? At the very least, a notice linking to the discussion -- a discussion taking place on an official forum rather than in the backwoods on someone's talk page -- should have been posted here.
A guideline can't override a guideline. The list guideline clearly sets forth that lists are a type of article. This list qualifies as the type of list known as a "structured list" and "table of contents". I just checked the list guideline, and tables of contents are specifically covered on there. I had completely forgotten about that. This page should be moved back to the main namespace, where it has been located for a very long time, and which is supported by the list guideline. The Transhumanist 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Contents pages, and lists of lists concerning the Wikipedia:Contents subpages, and specifically on the namespace they belong in. Thanks. -- Quiddity 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)