![]() | 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 |
What would be the value of moving some or all of this page, conceptually speaking, to a new section of the Community Portal. Of course, I assume some additional organizing and clean-up would be required first. Rfrisbie talk 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an "outline" of the purpose(s) of the various high-level pages somewhere? Rfrisbie talk 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good way to put it. Continuing that line of reasoning, there are 6 such kingdoms:
One purpose shared by all of the above is to provide browsing access to the encyclopedia (Wikipedia's articles) as an alternative to guessing the names of articles in the search box. The community portal does this too, but from the perspective of editing those articles, rather than merely reading them.
There's plenty of overlap between the various "kingdoms", some examples include: the category that lists portals ( Category:Portals), the list which lists categories ( Wikipedia:Categorical index), the help page about browsing ( Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia), and the many portals which contain topic lists (as per the portal creation instructions). Many portals also contain a redundant copy of the overview article on the portal's subject. The list system and category system almost entirely overlap, though there's little conformity between them - a categories in the cat system are often referred to differently in the list system.
The overlap seems to be healthy, in that if you forced everyone to focus on developing a single access system, they'd be at each others' throats, and there'd be an ongoing fierce battle over the design of the strucute. Having several systems provides outlets for editors with different styles, as well as several fronts for innovation. Each "kingdom" attracts its own champions, and each "kingdom" leapfrogs the others from time to time, often by copying material and adapting it for use. Multiple access systems also allow solutions in the case that when structure gets stuck in quirky pattern on one system, the other systems can steer around that problem, providing alternatives, as well as leadership by example (so that a stuck system may become unstuck). -- The Transhumanist 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are the Portal:Browse headings vs. the Portal:List headings.
|
|
I prefer the original headings/groupings for use on the portals listing page, and the same for the categorical index (see: the old wikipedia:browse design). If any of the sections get too big, they can be split apart further, but there is no current need (on those 2 pages).
The same principle goes for each of the reference pages, and I think an adaptive approach at each page would be the most appropriate: eg the "People and self" section is tiny on every page except Lists of lists. I think it should be merged back into the "Society" section. Ditto for "Religion" with "Philosophy" on most of the pages. On the other hand, on many pages it's clearly beneficial to seperate certain groups, like math from science (though again, not at the portal list).
Hopefully that clearly covers what I'm asking and suggesting. -- Quiddity 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Fields" page is a long stringy list, and needs to be columnized. I've posted a message and some sample markup code at Talk:List of academic disciplines#This page needs columnization. -- The Transhumanist 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss how the "quality" of articles should be addressed on this contents page. Rfrisbie talk 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The duplicated efforts you cited above are support projects, either for development or maintenance for a particular project on Wikipedia or one of its spin-offs. They aren't detrimental to Wikipedia, as they are focused on a particular result. It is to be expected that those projects should have their own support lists. In contrast to those, the reference pages are Wikipedia's top end, especially those on the header bar.
The one project I don't agree with is Wikipedia:Concise. I've dabbled with it from time to time, and have come to the conclusion that it is almost entirely useless. -- The Transhumanist 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding all that, I added links to the "Best" articles [2], as well as the navigation templates, only to have Quiddity summarily delete them. I find that very odd. Ignoring the best articles on the "Contents" page is like saying, "The high-quality articles are over there, but we can't acknowledge them here, so we'll pretend like they don't exist." I always support "full and frank disclosure" when it comes to quality. What's going on around the quality issue and how groups of pages are being segregated just smells fishy to me. I don't get into edit wars, so maybe this is a good time for a little break. Rfrisbie talk 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Which pages should we focus on grooming for inclusion on the side bar? (Aside from "portals" and "categories", which still need work). -- The Transhumanist 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorical index. This list is being used as a crutch by the category system. I think the category system should stand on its own -- with a single link on the sidebar leading to the top-most category in the category system. -- The Transhumanist 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories, lists, and series boxes all have distinct advantages and disadvantages. As Quiddity mentioned, the category system is a network, while the list pages are, well, lists. Both types of presentations have value to different users and for different purposes. We shouldn't presume to know which is best for everyone, but simply present what is available in a clear and concise fashion, so readers can make informed decisions for themselves. Rfrisbie talk 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a lot of experience navigating through the category system, and I can confirm what Quiddity and Rfrisbie say: there are multiple entry points, and channelling people to the 'Fundamental' and 'Category' level is most unhelpful. The best way to enter category space, in my opinion, is from an article. Click one of the category links at the bottom of an article, and then surf the category system, and then re-enter article space by cliking on an article you like the look of. Although superficially the category system organises articles, it is also a way to browse Wikipedia. Carcharoth 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
About the only way any collection of "Contents" pages here is going to make "sense" is to develop a comprehensive outline of what types of information should be covered and then assign that content to different pages with a minimum of duplication. This would satisfy the classic "exhaustive and mutually-exclusive" classification system criterion. Since we're not developing a "category network" here, such a "clean" system (for a wiki) would greatly enhance the usability of these pages. Any takers? Rfrisbie talk 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to clarify what the pages already here are to be used for. Here's how I understand the hierarchy of this system:
Should be self-explanatory. And I would suggest the above as an update for the {{
Reference pages (header bar)}}, which is currently was:
and is currently:
Then all content is divided up in relatively obvious ways. eg
The only problem I can see, is with List of reference tables. That originally seems to have been where lists got listed, then when there were enough of them for a new master-list page, like List of timelines, those get split-off. So it just needs a thorough check and split effort. -- Quiddity 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have one thing to say here (well, apart from the comment up above): Keep It Simple! There are already several complicated contents systems where it is possible to overload yourself with information. The portals are the simplest system, but why not come up with something even simpler? Nice simple pages that it is easy to navigate, keeping things to a minimum, but maximising breadth of coverage. Carcharoth 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the footer doesn't contain categories listed on the page. That seems fine to me. The footer has three links that aren't on the page: List of countries, List of cycles, and Lists of people. These don't seem to fit in any particular section. Using the "annotated" – "concise" TOC matching approach, should they be added to the page, or be deleted from the footer? Should anything else come or go? Rfrisbie talk 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove that, and I'm also going to change List of countries to Lists of countries (though I still don't know where to add that or Lists of people on this page). -- Quiddity 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. Most replies probably will be listed there. Rfrisbie talk 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:WikiProject Reference pages. Rfrisbie talk 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
With all the changes in page layout style going on, I propose they use a style primarily based on that at the Community Portal with similar color schemes at hues 30, 150, 210, 270, and 330. I suggest using Wikipedia:Reference pages as the base model with variations off of that, such as using an accent color like at Wikipedia:Department directory "Editorial departments," when useful. Rfrisbie talk 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we need all this coloring at all? The blue is useful for the Wikipedia Help pages to unite them as a group, and within portals and the Main Page for friendliness, but these are in article-space.
I very strongly argue that we should remove the majority of the coloring, before it bleeds over into the rest of article-space, like our broken ref-page header template has in List of geographers. This is very negative because it's harder to edit and bulks up the wikicode, and because it's less professional looking (imho), and because the colouring has no meta-meaning which will confuse anyone looking for a pattern or relevance behind the shades we pick.
I'm happy for Wikipedia:Contents, Wikipedia:Categorical index, and Portal:List to retain colouring, but I believe the rest should be replaced with the greyscale version of our palette, eg: User:Quiddity/sandbox. -- Quiddity 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the green of Lists of basic topics, but the whole rainbow thing, coupled with the cutesy icons, is getting distinctly AOL/ICQ styled, which I think is a strongly negative visual aesthetic for a project that's trying to get taken seriously. (To put it strongly; and not meaning to invalidate anyones real-life personal aesthetic outside Wikipedia... ;)
The Old style of Wikipedia:Browse was vastly more professional looking than Wikipedia:Categorical index is now (Transhumanist: Did you chose the pink for that one because you dont like it, consciously or subconsciously? ;) -- Quiddity 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The color changes today are getting very bizarre. I expect continuing down this road will undermine any serious efforts to add "Wikipedia's contents pages" to the respected high-level resources they should and can be. Something has to and will give. Rfrisbie talk 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the extremes in color palettes of late, I propose the following color scheme for all "Contents" pages that use borders, header bars, and color backgrounds, based on the hue of 210 degrees shown at Wikipedia talk:Colours.
Border: (H210 S15 V75) #A3B1BF |
Header: (H210 S15 V95) #CEE0F2 |
Accent color: (H210 S10 V100) #E6F2FF |
Main background: (H210 S4 V100) #F5FAFF |
Rfrisbie talk 04:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think each of the various pages on the Template:Contents pages (header bar) should use a seperate color scheme than the rest. It avoids confusion when jumping back and forth between similar pages. Lists of topics and Lists of lists have similar content, and should be different colors, for instance. -- The Transhumanist 07:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing the "Contents" from the Portal:list TOC. That looks better to me too, but I'd like to have all the TOCs use the same style as well. Any objections to removing the tile from all the other pages too? Rfrisbie talk 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the items in Template:Contents pages (header bar) should follow the basic order of this page's sections. If that order doesn't work for the template, then it doesn't work for this page either. At this point, I hope any further reorderings of items are proposed and supported here first. Rfrisbie talk 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I first noticed the Nuvola icons on several portals and templates. Personally, I believe they help brand a topic, and related topics, like at Portal:Society. I support continuing using them for Contents page TOCs and section headings, although it might help to reduce them in size a bit. Rfrisbie talk 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
When they are all set at the same size, why do some look smaller than the others?
The books, the people, the head, and the house all look noticeably smaller than the others. -- The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the icons leave something to be desired...
See, it's way too small at 25px. We can adjust the size. I don't see what your fixation on 25px is. If text alignment is your concern, we can keep the picture the same size while adusting the size of the image within the pic. -- The Transhumanist 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just tangentially, If there are any better arrow icons, I'd love to replace the blue back-arrow in {{ Help contents back}} with something a bit less flashy.. -- Quiddity 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15#Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbie talk 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what's it going to take to have this group of pages ready for a link to the Main Page? Rfrisbie talk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made just such a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#It's time for a new namespace: "Contents:". -- The Transhumanist 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of all the lists on Wikipedia without redirects? -- The Transhumanist 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of a contents page footer nav box by a "type" of page (portals) [5]. Maybe something like this also could apply to other types, e.g., glossaries and ...? When present on a contents page, users can browse more contents, or more in-depth aspects of a type of page. Rfrisbie talk 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There's an argument over how lists of lists should be named. See Talk:List of regional bird lists. The Transhumanist 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A user has been trying to remove all of the glossary pages to Wictionary. I expressed my opposition at Category talk:Glossaries. Also, I'll help add links from the category that aren't on the list. Rfrisbie talk 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And again, please see Talk:List_of_glossaries#Mass_deletion.2Fmove.3F. (I'm busy till tomorrow) -- Quiddity 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed all "list" red links I could find on "contents" pages under the same principle as Category:Portals under construction. Any type of "contents compilation" page such as these should be developed before they are added to a higher-order contents page. Red links should be reserved for topical lists that help to identify needed articles, such as at List of academic disciplines. Rfrisbie talk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we swap "topics" with "basic topics" order-wise, in the navbars and on this contents page? Lists of topics is clearly the more well-developed and thought-out page at this point, and should be placed first. -- Quiddity 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, where did you put the links you removed from the List of basic topics? The Transhumanist 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I object. Having them mixed together would obscure the basic lists, which are much easier to find and browse on their own list. There are many more subjects listed in the topics list set than in the basic list set. So it would become a scanning exercise in order to use a mixed page if your goal was to browse basic topic lists. The two lists should remain separate. The Transhumanist 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As Transhumanist says above "This is a problem where the target lists are indices and not tables of contents, which may call for a rename of those to Index of ____ topics. Like the one on mathematics and the one on psychology.".
I agree, and propose we rename these as we find them. -- Quiddity 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page
The Transhumanist 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He is born in Gujarat, brought up in Secunderabad,AP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maheshprabhugp ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Has the contents page always been editable...? Michaelritchie200 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
i dont know what to talk about i just want to test this web page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sodaman ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
How do you create a page from nothing? Ie if you want to add an article. – Squire101 02:47, 26 April 2007
what can we do with nuclear waste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.180.189 ( talk • contribs)
ok..this may seem very strange, but how do you talk to other users? if someone could maybe just teach me, i would be thankful! >.< Ikeyko 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism reported at WP:AIV. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:11, 27 July 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 |
What would be the value of moving some or all of this page, conceptually speaking, to a new section of the Community Portal. Of course, I assume some additional organizing and clean-up would be required first. Rfrisbie talk 22:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an "outline" of the purpose(s) of the various high-level pages somewhere? Rfrisbie talk 11:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good way to put it. Continuing that line of reasoning, there are 6 such kingdoms:
One purpose shared by all of the above is to provide browsing access to the encyclopedia (Wikipedia's articles) as an alternative to guessing the names of articles in the search box. The community portal does this too, but from the perspective of editing those articles, rather than merely reading them.
There's plenty of overlap between the various "kingdoms", some examples include: the category that lists portals ( Category:Portals), the list which lists categories ( Wikipedia:Categorical index), the help page about browsing ( Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia), and the many portals which contain topic lists (as per the portal creation instructions). Many portals also contain a redundant copy of the overview article on the portal's subject. The list system and category system almost entirely overlap, though there's little conformity between them - a categories in the cat system are often referred to differently in the list system.
The overlap seems to be healthy, in that if you forced everyone to focus on developing a single access system, they'd be at each others' throats, and there'd be an ongoing fierce battle over the design of the strucute. Having several systems provides outlets for editors with different styles, as well as several fronts for innovation. Each "kingdom" attracts its own champions, and each "kingdom" leapfrogs the others from time to time, often by copying material and adapting it for use. Multiple access systems also allow solutions in the case that when structure gets stuck in quirky pattern on one system, the other systems can steer around that problem, providing alternatives, as well as leadership by example (so that a stuck system may become unstuck). -- The Transhumanist 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are the Portal:Browse headings vs. the Portal:List headings.
|
|
I prefer the original headings/groupings for use on the portals listing page, and the same for the categorical index (see: the old wikipedia:browse design). If any of the sections get too big, they can be split apart further, but there is no current need (on those 2 pages).
The same principle goes for each of the reference pages, and I think an adaptive approach at each page would be the most appropriate: eg the "People and self" section is tiny on every page except Lists of lists. I think it should be merged back into the "Society" section. Ditto for "Religion" with "Philosophy" on most of the pages. On the other hand, on many pages it's clearly beneficial to seperate certain groups, like math from science (though again, not at the portal list).
Hopefully that clearly covers what I'm asking and suggesting. -- Quiddity 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Fields" page is a long stringy list, and needs to be columnized. I've posted a message and some sample markup code at Talk:List of academic disciplines#This page needs columnization. -- The Transhumanist 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss how the "quality" of articles should be addressed on this contents page. Rfrisbie talk 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The duplicated efforts you cited above are support projects, either for development or maintenance for a particular project on Wikipedia or one of its spin-offs. They aren't detrimental to Wikipedia, as they are focused on a particular result. It is to be expected that those projects should have their own support lists. In contrast to those, the reference pages are Wikipedia's top end, especially those on the header bar.
The one project I don't agree with is Wikipedia:Concise. I've dabbled with it from time to time, and have come to the conclusion that it is almost entirely useless. -- The Transhumanist 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding all that, I added links to the "Best" articles [2], as well as the navigation templates, only to have Quiddity summarily delete them. I find that very odd. Ignoring the best articles on the "Contents" page is like saying, "The high-quality articles are over there, but we can't acknowledge them here, so we'll pretend like they don't exist." I always support "full and frank disclosure" when it comes to quality. What's going on around the quality issue and how groups of pages are being segregated just smells fishy to me. I don't get into edit wars, so maybe this is a good time for a little break. Rfrisbie talk 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Which pages should we focus on grooming for inclusion on the side bar? (Aside from "portals" and "categories", which still need work). -- The Transhumanist 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorical index. This list is being used as a crutch by the category system. I think the category system should stand on its own -- with a single link on the sidebar leading to the top-most category in the category system. -- The Transhumanist 11:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories, lists, and series boxes all have distinct advantages and disadvantages. As Quiddity mentioned, the category system is a network, while the list pages are, well, lists. Both types of presentations have value to different users and for different purposes. We shouldn't presume to know which is best for everyone, but simply present what is available in a clear and concise fashion, so readers can make informed decisions for themselves. Rfrisbie talk 22:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a lot of experience navigating through the category system, and I can confirm what Quiddity and Rfrisbie say: there are multiple entry points, and channelling people to the 'Fundamental' and 'Category' level is most unhelpful. The best way to enter category space, in my opinion, is from an article. Click one of the category links at the bottom of an article, and then surf the category system, and then re-enter article space by cliking on an article you like the look of. Although superficially the category system organises articles, it is also a way to browse Wikipedia. Carcharoth 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
About the only way any collection of "Contents" pages here is going to make "sense" is to develop a comprehensive outline of what types of information should be covered and then assign that content to different pages with a minimum of duplication. This would satisfy the classic "exhaustive and mutually-exclusive" classification system criterion. Since we're not developing a "category network" here, such a "clean" system (for a wiki) would greatly enhance the usability of these pages. Any takers? Rfrisbie talk 04:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to clarify what the pages already here are to be used for. Here's how I understand the hierarchy of this system:
Should be self-explanatory. And I would suggest the above as an update for the {{
Reference pages (header bar)}}, which is currently was:
and is currently:
Then all content is divided up in relatively obvious ways. eg
The only problem I can see, is with List of reference tables. That originally seems to have been where lists got listed, then when there were enough of them for a new master-list page, like List of timelines, those get split-off. So it just needs a thorough check and split effort. -- Quiddity 06:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have one thing to say here (well, apart from the comment up above): Keep It Simple! There are already several complicated contents systems where it is possible to overload yourself with information. The portals are the simplest system, but why not come up with something even simpler? Nice simple pages that it is easy to navigate, keeping things to a minimum, but maximising breadth of coverage. Carcharoth 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the footer doesn't contain categories listed on the page. That seems fine to me. The footer has three links that aren't on the page: List of countries, List of cycles, and Lists of people. These don't seem to fit in any particular section. Using the "annotated" – "concise" TOC matching approach, should they be added to the page, or be deleted from the footer? Should anything else come or go? Rfrisbie talk 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove that, and I'm also going to change List of countries to Lists of countries (though I still don't know where to add that or Lists of people on this page). -- Quiddity 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Wikipedia:Contents and related pages. Most replies probably will be listed there. Rfrisbie talk 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:WikiProject Reference pages. Rfrisbie talk 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
With all the changes in page layout style going on, I propose they use a style primarily based on that at the Community Portal with similar color schemes at hues 30, 150, 210, 270, and 330. I suggest using Wikipedia:Reference pages as the base model with variations off of that, such as using an accent color like at Wikipedia:Department directory "Editorial departments," when useful. Rfrisbie talk 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we need all this coloring at all? The blue is useful for the Wikipedia Help pages to unite them as a group, and within portals and the Main Page for friendliness, but these are in article-space.
I very strongly argue that we should remove the majority of the coloring, before it bleeds over into the rest of article-space, like our broken ref-page header template has in List of geographers. This is very negative because it's harder to edit and bulks up the wikicode, and because it's less professional looking (imho), and because the colouring has no meta-meaning which will confuse anyone looking for a pattern or relevance behind the shades we pick.
I'm happy for Wikipedia:Contents, Wikipedia:Categorical index, and Portal:List to retain colouring, but I believe the rest should be replaced with the greyscale version of our palette, eg: User:Quiddity/sandbox. -- Quiddity 22:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the green of Lists of basic topics, but the whole rainbow thing, coupled with the cutesy icons, is getting distinctly AOL/ICQ styled, which I think is a strongly negative visual aesthetic for a project that's trying to get taken seriously. (To put it strongly; and not meaning to invalidate anyones real-life personal aesthetic outside Wikipedia... ;)
The Old style of Wikipedia:Browse was vastly more professional looking than Wikipedia:Categorical index is now (Transhumanist: Did you chose the pink for that one because you dont like it, consciously or subconsciously? ;) -- Quiddity 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The color changes today are getting very bizarre. I expect continuing down this road will undermine any serious efforts to add "Wikipedia's contents pages" to the respected high-level resources they should and can be. Something has to and will give. Rfrisbie talk 02:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the extremes in color palettes of late, I propose the following color scheme for all "Contents" pages that use borders, header bars, and color backgrounds, based on the hue of 210 degrees shown at Wikipedia talk:Colours.
Border: (H210 S15 V75) #A3B1BF |
Header: (H210 S15 V95) #CEE0F2 |
Accent color: (H210 S10 V100) #E6F2FF |
Main background: (H210 S4 V100) #F5FAFF |
Rfrisbie talk 04:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think each of the various pages on the Template:Contents pages (header bar) should use a seperate color scheme than the rest. It avoids confusion when jumping back and forth between similar pages. Lists of topics and Lists of lists have similar content, and should be different colors, for instance. -- The Transhumanist 07:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing the "Contents" from the Portal:list TOC. That looks better to me too, but I'd like to have all the TOCs use the same style as well. Any objections to removing the tile from all the other pages too? Rfrisbie talk 13:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the items in Template:Contents pages (header bar) should follow the basic order of this page's sections. If that order doesn't work for the template, then it doesn't work for this page either. At this point, I hope any further reorderings of items are proposed and supported here first. Rfrisbie talk 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I first noticed the Nuvola icons on several portals and templates. Personally, I believe they help brand a topic, and related topics, like at Portal:Society. I support continuing using them for Contents page TOCs and section headings, although it might help to reduce them in size a bit. Rfrisbie talk 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
When they are all set at the same size, why do some look smaller than the others?
The books, the people, the head, and the house all look noticeably smaller than the others. -- The Transhumanist 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the icons leave something to be desired...
See, it's way too small at 25px. We can adjust the size. I don't see what your fixation on 25px is. If text alignment is your concern, we can keep the picture the same size while adusting the size of the image within the pic. -- The Transhumanist 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just tangentially, If there are any better arrow icons, I'd love to replace the blue back-arrow in {{ Help contents back}} with something a bit less flashy.. -- Quiddity 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15#Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbie talk 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what's it going to take to have this group of pages ready for a link to the Main Page? Rfrisbie talk 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made just such a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#It's time for a new namespace: "Contents:". -- The Transhumanist 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of all the lists on Wikipedia without redirects? -- The Transhumanist 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example of a contents page footer nav box by a "type" of page (portals) [5]. Maybe something like this also could apply to other types, e.g., glossaries and ...? When present on a contents page, users can browse more contents, or more in-depth aspects of a type of page. Rfrisbie talk 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There's an argument over how lists of lists should be named. See Talk:List of regional bird lists. The Transhumanist 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A user has been trying to remove all of the glossary pages to Wictionary. I expressed my opposition at Category talk:Glossaries. Also, I'll help add links from the category that aren't on the list. Rfrisbie talk 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And again, please see Talk:List_of_glossaries#Mass_deletion.2Fmove.3F. (I'm busy till tomorrow) -- Quiddity 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed all "list" red links I could find on "contents" pages under the same principle as Category:Portals under construction. Any type of "contents compilation" page such as these should be developed before they are added to a higher-order contents page. Red links should be reserved for topical lists that help to identify needed articles, such as at List of academic disciplines. Rfrisbie talk 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we swap "topics" with "basic topics" order-wise, in the navbars and on this contents page? Lists of topics is clearly the more well-developed and thought-out page at this point, and should be placed first. -- Quiddity 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, where did you put the links you removed from the List of basic topics? The Transhumanist 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I object. Having them mixed together would obscure the basic lists, which are much easier to find and browse on their own list. There are many more subjects listed in the topics list set than in the basic list set. So it would become a scanning exercise in order to use a mixed page if your goal was to browse basic topic lists. The two lists should remain separate. The Transhumanist 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As Transhumanist says above "This is a problem where the target lists are indices and not tables of contents, which may call for a rename of those to Index of ____ topics. Like the one on mathematics and the one on psychology.".
I agree, and propose we rename these as we find them. -- Quiddity 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Main Page#Proposal: add one or more of these links to the main page
The Transhumanist 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He is born in Gujarat, brought up in Secunderabad,AP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maheshprabhugp ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Has the contents page always been editable...? Michaelritchie200 10:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
i dont know what to talk about i just want to test this web page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sodaman ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
How do you create a page from nothing? Ie if you want to add an article. – Squire101 02:47, 26 April 2007
what can we do with nuclear waste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.180.189 ( talk • contribs)
ok..this may seem very strange, but how do you talk to other users? if someone could maybe just teach me, i would be thankful! >.< Ikeyko 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism reported at WP:AIV. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)