This page 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. |
I started the last RfC for a new namespace, and I think I know why it went wrong (mostly TLDR). I'm going to collect links and background tonight, and will help draft a discussion thread, for use at the VillagePump (or somewhere else, if anyone objects to VP).
There are a metric shitload of overlapping issues, so my biggest concern is anyone trying to oversimplify the issues. I'll elaborate on that (as succinctly as possible) tonight. The point form list of outline objections is up at #Points. However, there are related issues that aren't mentioned there.
Please (please) see the threads at User talk:Dbachmann#More on Outlines and User talk:Verbal#Outline RfC help request for a few of my tentative thoughts, but reply here or at my talkpage to avoid overwhelming those editors. Or reply at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft
Calm and patience would be greatly appreciated. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
ESSAYS ARE BORING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.108.197 ( talk) 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(copied from #Ownership and expert input)
I have noticed that the introduction to Outline of Hungary was lifted direct from the Hungary article in this edit. There is no record of where the text came from, its list of authors or a link to the original version of the text - nothing.
Per my reading of WP:COPY#Re-use of text, this is a failure to attribute the authors of the text. There is no reasonably accessible method of checking the origin of the text at the outline page, nor any way of attributing its authorship correctly. This is very similar to the reason we don't allow cut-and-paste moves - as it says at WP:MOVE:
Correct me if I'm wrong - but if I'm right this is going to take quite a bit of clean-up, as it doesn't seem to be an isolated case, e.g. Ancient Greece and Outline of Ancient Greece; Aerospace and Outline of Aerospace, etc.
Adding Template:GFDLSource to the affected articles would be one way to add attribution. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
So, this is still an outstanding problem over many articles which needs fixing by tagging or rewriting. Is anyone from this project getting round to fixing it? Knepflerle ( talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that rewriting the intros is sufficient to solve the attribution problem, and not strictly necessary - but that doesn't mean rewriting isn't a good thing. I do agree with Verbal that a purpose-written intro would be more suitable for these quasi-articles if they are going to be hanging around article-space. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Quiddity's advice is correct, but the three examples remain unfixed. And then there's all the other articles to find, check and fix. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Essays are extremely boring and should be ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.108.197 ( talk) 02:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Please update here
In Category:Incomplete outlines, some redundancies:
In Category:Outlines of regions (5)
In Category:Outlines of countries (300), some redundancies
In Category:Outlines of U.S. states (51)
There are several bits of information about countries that are on the one hand very relevant to people exploring that country, while on the other hand very difficult to take into the prose version of the "normal" country article.
Examples of this are "side of the road traffic drives on"; "voltage of current"; "type of electric plugs" (forgive my English here as I am no native speaker and unfamiliar with the jargon; hope you get the meaning)
There is an ongoing discussion where to place this type of information, and the only option so far seems to be the infobox. In my view this overloads the infobox.
In my view, outlines would be a very relevant place as it summarises factual information. Also it would give the outlines information of interest located in a structured way with the country only in the outline (a unique selling point for the country outline). How do you guys think about adding this type of information to the standard country outlines? Arnoutf ( talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This proposal has been marked as failed, as consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time (and it's been a long time). Verbal chat 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The failure of this project to sort even one of the three CC-by-SA attribution violations pointed out explicitly above in five months(!) reflects both on the relevant timescales and "success" of this venture. Knepflerle ( talk) 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please give input at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, or improve the RfC's wording directly.
Please give editing-assistance at #Fixing accreditation, above. (instructions included). Thanks! -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please help in completing the proposed merges of the Historical outlines of regions, as per consensus. Minnecologies ( talk) 16:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This is to inform this project that a page under this projects scope is being considered for deletion. Pls see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines. Moxy ( talk) 16:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternative_Outline_Articles_Proposal, the writing of a draft of an Outline Guideline is underway at Wikipedia:Outlines/Proposed Outline Guideline. The Transhumanist 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Since its scope was nearly identical to Wikipedia:Outlines, and it was turning into a rewrite of it, I've merged the draft into the essay. The discussions pertaining to it have been copied below for your convenience:
I have created this draft proposal based on the input and consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternative_Outline_Articles_Proposal. There is a clear consensus for developing a guideline on outline articles, however the initial proposal that garnered support needs to be developed more before it can be an effective guideline. I hope we can do so here, and then begin an RFC to adopt a more substantial version. Monty 845 16:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
We should develop a guideline that specifies what a proper outline article is. Once a consensus is reached on that, the guideline can be used to support the renaming of lists masquerading as outlines, and the merging of outlines that do nothing more then duplicate existing articles or lists.
That is just my idea for how to start it, does it seem consistent with what a proper outline should and should not be? Monty 845 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've modified the draft to clarify some ambiguities or vagaries in the original.
The original stated that outlines are not lists. We must be careful not to rely on wikijargon too heavily, because we are also speaking English. Outline articles are definitely a type of stand-alone list, just as "Index of", "Glossary of", "Bibliography of", and "Timeline of" are other types of lists. Outlines are hierarchically-structured lists. Note that we are not using the general context of "outline" here, but the context that is the nickname for "hierarchical outline" – that's because naming articles "Hierarchical outline of" is too cumbersome, and because the common name used wherever hierarchical outlines are utilized (school, work, other encyclopedias) is "Outline".
"Outline" refers to a type of list format, but the format itself was missing from the initial draft. I've tried to describe the outline format.
There is often confusion about topics lists. There are two types of topics lists on Wikipedia based on their structure. Indexes on Wikipedia are alphabetical topics lists. The other type of topics lists are structured, that is they are outlines. Some editors claim that topics lists with topical subsections are not hierarchically structured, but they are ignoring the definition of hierarchy. Subject-->subtopic-->subsubtopic is a hierarchy, regardless of how general the subsections are (some outlines are looser than others). Hierarchically-structured topics lists need to be renamed to "Outline of".
Any topics list that is hierarchically structured is an outline.
Outlines have occasionally been mistaken for copies of articles because they have displayed the same leads as the articles. A clean-up effort is underway to differentiate the lead sections of outlines so they are visibly identified more distinctly as outlines. The clean up is comprised of moving the introductory sentence to the top, followed by condensing and reformatting the lead prose into a primary list entry for the outline's subject (with annotation).
So far, the leads of outlines listed under Culture, Health, and Technology have been reformatted in the manner mentioned above.
The initial guideline draft was unclear on the use of annotations in outlines. Many outlines use them, and the whole set of outlines (except for country outlines) is evolving toward a standard design that includes annotations. The following examples rely heavily on annotations, and set an example for others to follow with respect to them:
The initial draft was also somewhat ambiguous with respect to scope and how outlines are expected to cover their subjects. Experience with outlines show that they simply keep growing. Their tendency is to become more and more comprehensive. The outline project started out as the basic topics lists project, but the lists grew in scope so large that they were no longer basic and we had to change the project's name! You can't stop them from growing (I've tried), nor would you want to. Similar to regular articles, outlines can be split as they grow, and growing articles that split off are a major source of new articles.
Currently there are no "Outline of" articles that are called outlines by mistake. They are all lists, and they all have at least rudimentary hierarchical structure. Some are looser than others, but they all have hierarchies. A few "Outline of" articles have paragraphs stuck into them, and those paragraphs should be removed or converted into list entries or list entries with annotations (if possible).
However, there are about 200 outlines that are named something else. What makes an outline an outline is its scope (a subject, rather than a discrete class of items) and the structure of its contents (not its title).
I hope that clarifies outlines. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I've merged Wikipedia talk:Outlines/Proposed Outline Guideline into Wikipedia:Outlines, because the latter already covered the same ground.
During the merge I consolidated redundant sections, and the whole turned out a little wordier than it was before. Any suggestions or edits to make it easier to read and understand are most welcome.
When the time comes to consider adopting this as official procedure, a proposal can be made to promote it to guideline status. The Transhumanist 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Are there any plans to allow outlines to be collapsible? File a bug? Brettz9 ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#List_guidelines. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#outline_sections_.28not_articles.29. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this would depend on the specific outline, but some guidance would be useful. I assume that the usual "not just decoration" rule remains.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Transhumanist,
Was doing a bit of tidying at Outline of birds. I was thinking of increasing the ToC limit to 3, and wanted some style guidance for that; a brief Preview of it looked fine to me. But before committing, I searched around at the Portal for anything like a Manual of Style like some projects have (e.g., MOS:BIO, MOS:JAPAN, MOS:MATH, MOS:ORGANISMS) to see what the recommendation was for ToC limit, but I couldn't find one.
If there already is something like a style guide for outlines, basically a "everything you always wanted to know about properly formatting an Outline page but were afraid to ask", then please just create and redirect MOS:OUTLINE to it, and stick a {{ shortcut}} up on the Portal page somewhere. And if there isn't a MOS for Outline, can you create one?
I can see two useful entries for it already:
Regarding the second: I see for example, that at Outline of birds#Bird behavior we have
alpabetized in the M's' and N's respectively, which I think is correct. But we also had
mixed in with I's, which seems half-right, and Bird vocalization was in there twice, once piped to Vocalization and in the V's, and once unpiped, and in the B's. (I've fixed these.)
If it were up to me, I'd say pipe everything that has the upper level term (or equivalent adjective) in it to remove it (just like bottom-matter Nav templates generally do), so, recommend: [[Bird nest|Nest]] and [[Avian intelligence|Intelligence]] when those are entries one level under Bird (or Birds).
I think for toc limit, I'd do it case-by-case: if it looks horrible and too long to go past 2, then 2. But I Previewed {{Toc limit|limit=3}}
on
Outline of birds and
Outline of Catalonia and the ToC seems more informative and not at all obtrusive at that level.
But whether you agree/disagree with my choices isn't so much the issue; I'm sure by this point, you have a vast storehouse of wisdom and convention about how to do these pages correctly, and probably do it as a matter of habit without even thinking about it. But for those of less involved or new to the project, it's less obvious. It would be a good idea to get it written down. There's so much precedent out there already, it's just dispersed and not collected and summarized clearly in one place, and if it were, 99% of the time people would just follow it, and probably save you a ton of minor tweaks. (Tip: if you like the idea, first thing to do is create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Outlines and stick one sentence in there, maybe topped with {{ Under construction}}; then create MOS:OUTLINE and #REDIRECT it to the first; then you're good to go and can develop your MOS in peace.) HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a look, and make some comments. With respect to what I said above, some of my edits at Outline of birds don't respect the redundancy recommendation at WP:OUTLINE#Section headings in outlines; wish I'd seen that earlier. I may have to fix it up somewhat. Mathglot ( talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
What I don't see in this is an explanation for when an outline is appropriate. For articles, we have stuff like notability guidelines and adequate coverage. But when is an outline appropriate?
I am completely new to outlines, as I didn't even know Wikipedia had them. So I'm completely at a loss in this respect. Even if I don't create one, it would be nice to know when I could expect one to exist. — trlkly 12:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I started the last RfC for a new namespace, and I think I know why it went wrong (mostly TLDR). I'm going to collect links and background tonight, and will help draft a discussion thread, for use at the VillagePump (or somewhere else, if anyone objects to VP).
There are a metric shitload of overlapping issues, so my biggest concern is anyone trying to oversimplify the issues. I'll elaborate on that (as succinctly as possible) tonight. The point form list of outline objections is up at #Points. However, there are related issues that aren't mentioned there.
Please (please) see the threads at User talk:Dbachmann#More on Outlines and User talk:Verbal#Outline RfC help request for a few of my tentative thoughts, but reply here or at my talkpage to avoid overwhelming those editors. Or reply at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft
Calm and patience would be greatly appreciated. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
ESSAYS ARE BORING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.108.197 ( talk) 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(copied from #Ownership and expert input)
I have noticed that the introduction to Outline of Hungary was lifted direct from the Hungary article in this edit. There is no record of where the text came from, its list of authors or a link to the original version of the text - nothing.
Per my reading of WP:COPY#Re-use of text, this is a failure to attribute the authors of the text. There is no reasonably accessible method of checking the origin of the text at the outline page, nor any way of attributing its authorship correctly. This is very similar to the reason we don't allow cut-and-paste moves - as it says at WP:MOVE:
Correct me if I'm wrong - but if I'm right this is going to take quite a bit of clean-up, as it doesn't seem to be an isolated case, e.g. Ancient Greece and Outline of Ancient Greece; Aerospace and Outline of Aerospace, etc.
Adding Template:GFDLSource to the affected articles would be one way to add attribution. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
So, this is still an outstanding problem over many articles which needs fixing by tagging or rewriting. Is anyone from this project getting round to fixing it? Knepflerle ( talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that rewriting the intros is sufficient to solve the attribution problem, and not strictly necessary - but that doesn't mean rewriting isn't a good thing. I do agree with Verbal that a purpose-written intro would be more suitable for these quasi-articles if they are going to be hanging around article-space. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Quiddity's advice is correct, but the three examples remain unfixed. And then there's all the other articles to find, check and fix. Knepflerle ( talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Essays are extremely boring and should be ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.108.197 ( talk) 02:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Please update here
In Category:Incomplete outlines, some redundancies:
In Category:Outlines of regions (5)
In Category:Outlines of countries (300), some redundancies
In Category:Outlines of U.S. states (51)
There are several bits of information about countries that are on the one hand very relevant to people exploring that country, while on the other hand very difficult to take into the prose version of the "normal" country article.
Examples of this are "side of the road traffic drives on"; "voltage of current"; "type of electric plugs" (forgive my English here as I am no native speaker and unfamiliar with the jargon; hope you get the meaning)
There is an ongoing discussion where to place this type of information, and the only option so far seems to be the infobox. In my view this overloads the infobox.
In my view, outlines would be a very relevant place as it summarises factual information. Also it would give the outlines information of interest located in a structured way with the country only in the outline (a unique selling point for the country outline). How do you guys think about adding this type of information to the standard country outlines? Arnoutf ( talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This proposal has been marked as failed, as consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time (and it's been a long time). Verbal chat 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The failure of this project to sort even one of the three CC-by-SA attribution violations pointed out explicitly above in five months(!) reflects both on the relevant timescales and "success" of this venture. Knepflerle ( talk) 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Please give input at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, or improve the RfC's wording directly.
Please give editing-assistance at #Fixing accreditation, above. (instructions included). Thanks! -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please help in completing the proposed merges of the Historical outlines of regions, as per consensus. Minnecologies ( talk) 16:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
This is to inform this project that a page under this projects scope is being considered for deletion. Pls see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines. Moxy ( talk) 16:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternative_Outline_Articles_Proposal, the writing of a draft of an Outline Guideline is underway at Wikipedia:Outlines/Proposed Outline Guideline. The Transhumanist 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Since its scope was nearly identical to Wikipedia:Outlines, and it was turning into a rewrite of it, I've merged the draft into the essay. The discussions pertaining to it have been copied below for your convenience:
I have created this draft proposal based on the input and consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternative_Outline_Articles_Proposal. There is a clear consensus for developing a guideline on outline articles, however the initial proposal that garnered support needs to be developed more before it can be an effective guideline. I hope we can do so here, and then begin an RFC to adopt a more substantial version. Monty 845 16:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
We should develop a guideline that specifies what a proper outline article is. Once a consensus is reached on that, the guideline can be used to support the renaming of lists masquerading as outlines, and the merging of outlines that do nothing more then duplicate existing articles or lists.
That is just my idea for how to start it, does it seem consistent with what a proper outline should and should not be? Monty 845 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've modified the draft to clarify some ambiguities or vagaries in the original.
The original stated that outlines are not lists. We must be careful not to rely on wikijargon too heavily, because we are also speaking English. Outline articles are definitely a type of stand-alone list, just as "Index of", "Glossary of", "Bibliography of", and "Timeline of" are other types of lists. Outlines are hierarchically-structured lists. Note that we are not using the general context of "outline" here, but the context that is the nickname for "hierarchical outline" – that's because naming articles "Hierarchical outline of" is too cumbersome, and because the common name used wherever hierarchical outlines are utilized (school, work, other encyclopedias) is "Outline".
"Outline" refers to a type of list format, but the format itself was missing from the initial draft. I've tried to describe the outline format.
There is often confusion about topics lists. There are two types of topics lists on Wikipedia based on their structure. Indexes on Wikipedia are alphabetical topics lists. The other type of topics lists are structured, that is they are outlines. Some editors claim that topics lists with topical subsections are not hierarchically structured, but they are ignoring the definition of hierarchy. Subject-->subtopic-->subsubtopic is a hierarchy, regardless of how general the subsections are (some outlines are looser than others). Hierarchically-structured topics lists need to be renamed to "Outline of".
Any topics list that is hierarchically structured is an outline.
Outlines have occasionally been mistaken for copies of articles because they have displayed the same leads as the articles. A clean-up effort is underway to differentiate the lead sections of outlines so they are visibly identified more distinctly as outlines. The clean up is comprised of moving the introductory sentence to the top, followed by condensing and reformatting the lead prose into a primary list entry for the outline's subject (with annotation).
So far, the leads of outlines listed under Culture, Health, and Technology have been reformatted in the manner mentioned above.
The initial guideline draft was unclear on the use of annotations in outlines. Many outlines use them, and the whole set of outlines (except for country outlines) is evolving toward a standard design that includes annotations. The following examples rely heavily on annotations, and set an example for others to follow with respect to them:
The initial draft was also somewhat ambiguous with respect to scope and how outlines are expected to cover their subjects. Experience with outlines show that they simply keep growing. Their tendency is to become more and more comprehensive. The outline project started out as the basic topics lists project, but the lists grew in scope so large that they were no longer basic and we had to change the project's name! You can't stop them from growing (I've tried), nor would you want to. Similar to regular articles, outlines can be split as they grow, and growing articles that split off are a major source of new articles.
Currently there are no "Outline of" articles that are called outlines by mistake. They are all lists, and they all have at least rudimentary hierarchical structure. Some are looser than others, but they all have hierarchies. A few "Outline of" articles have paragraphs stuck into them, and those paragraphs should be removed or converted into list entries or list entries with annotations (if possible).
However, there are about 200 outlines that are named something else. What makes an outline an outline is its scope (a subject, rather than a discrete class of items) and the structure of its contents (not its title).
I hope that clarifies outlines. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I've merged Wikipedia talk:Outlines/Proposed Outline Guideline into Wikipedia:Outlines, because the latter already covered the same ground.
During the merge I consolidated redundant sections, and the whole turned out a little wordier than it was before. Any suggestions or edits to make it easier to read and understand are most welcome.
When the time comes to consider adopting this as official procedure, a proposal can be made to promote it to guideline status. The Transhumanist 01:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Are there any plans to allow outlines to be collapsible? File a bug? Brettz9 ( talk) 00:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#List_guidelines. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#outline_sections_.28not_articles.29. Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 03:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this would depend on the specific outline, but some guidance would be useful. I assume that the usual "not just decoration" rule remains.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Transhumanist,
Was doing a bit of tidying at Outline of birds. I was thinking of increasing the ToC limit to 3, and wanted some style guidance for that; a brief Preview of it looked fine to me. But before committing, I searched around at the Portal for anything like a Manual of Style like some projects have (e.g., MOS:BIO, MOS:JAPAN, MOS:MATH, MOS:ORGANISMS) to see what the recommendation was for ToC limit, but I couldn't find one.
If there already is something like a style guide for outlines, basically a "everything you always wanted to know about properly formatting an Outline page but were afraid to ask", then please just create and redirect MOS:OUTLINE to it, and stick a {{ shortcut}} up on the Portal page somewhere. And if there isn't a MOS for Outline, can you create one?
I can see two useful entries for it already:
Regarding the second: I see for example, that at Outline of birds#Bird behavior we have
alpabetized in the M's' and N's respectively, which I think is correct. But we also had
mixed in with I's, which seems half-right, and Bird vocalization was in there twice, once piped to Vocalization and in the V's, and once unpiped, and in the B's. (I've fixed these.)
If it were up to me, I'd say pipe everything that has the upper level term (or equivalent adjective) in it to remove it (just like bottom-matter Nav templates generally do), so, recommend: [[Bird nest|Nest]] and [[Avian intelligence|Intelligence]] when those are entries one level under Bird (or Birds).
I think for toc limit, I'd do it case-by-case: if it looks horrible and too long to go past 2, then 2. But I Previewed {{Toc limit|limit=3}}
on
Outline of birds and
Outline of Catalonia and the ToC seems more informative and not at all obtrusive at that level.
But whether you agree/disagree with my choices isn't so much the issue; I'm sure by this point, you have a vast storehouse of wisdom and convention about how to do these pages correctly, and probably do it as a matter of habit without even thinking about it. But for those of less involved or new to the project, it's less obvious. It would be a good idea to get it written down. There's so much precedent out there already, it's just dispersed and not collected and summarized clearly in one place, and if it were, 99% of the time people would just follow it, and probably save you a ton of minor tweaks. (Tip: if you like the idea, first thing to do is create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Outlines and stick one sentence in there, maybe topped with {{ Under construction}}; then create MOS:OUTLINE and #REDIRECT it to the first; then you're good to go and can develop your MOS in peace.) HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 23:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a look, and make some comments. With respect to what I said above, some of my edits at Outline of birds don't respect the redundancy recommendation at WP:OUTLINE#Section headings in outlines; wish I'd seen that earlier. I may have to fix it up somewhat. Mathglot ( talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
What I don't see in this is an explanation for when an outline is appropriate. For articles, we have stuff like notability guidelines and adequate coverage. But when is an outline appropriate?
I am completely new to outlines, as I didn't even know Wikipedia had them. So I'm completely at a loss in this respect. Even if I don't create one, it would be nice to know when I could expect one to exist. — trlkly 12:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)