Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents

This is not the page to ask for help.

This page is just for discussion of the Wikipedia:Contents page itself, and the Category:WikiProject Contents pages as a group. You may be looking for one of the following pages: Wikipedia:Help desk - For questions about Wikipedia and editing. Wikipedia:Reference desk - For questions on factual topics (for example: Who is the pope?) See also: Wikipedia:Village pump - For policy and technical discussions. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - To resolve issues between users.

Contents pages, and lists of lists

We cannot agree on which namespace some of these pages belong in: {{Contents pages (header bar)}}:

1. What namespace do items 2–6 belong in, mainspace or projectspace? (see example log for many disputed moves) Part of the problem seems to be the overlap of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and Wikipedia:Lists.
2. If they are in mainspace, should they have the fancy but unnecessary colouring and icons? Can and are they aiming for Featured List status? (similar to Lists of mathematics topics perhaps?)
3. We desperately need more participation. I'm still shocked that Wikipedia:Contents made it into the sidebar so easily. We need more editors to go through all the subpages, to add missing items and remove unwarranted items. There aren't nearly enough people watchlisting the central talkpage to have a discussion there. (Please do, it's a very low update page. Actually all 8 are).

That's the very condensed version, with many tangential issues. Previous discussions abound, most recently here, here, here, and here.

Please advise. --Quiddity 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• They are in the main namespace, as evidenced by the lack of "wikipedia:" or "template:" or something else at the start of their name. If you wish to discuss their layout, either edit them yourself or use the talk page. Wrt featured lists, refer to the WP:FLC page >Radiant< 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Nonono (I know what a namespace is :P ). They have been moved back and forth between mainspace and projectspace a number of times. That is the problem.
  Many (most?) editors believe pages like Lists of basic topics belong in projectspace. They cannot pass Featured list criteria (WP:WIAFL), as by design they have no references or lead section. They look and act like portals, but don't belong in that namespace either.
  As the admin Prodego said (referring to List of overviews): "Obviously this is a list of Wikipedia overviews, not all overviews, so I think it probably belongs in the Wikipedia namespace." User Rbellin said: "... I don't think a move to the Wikipedia namespace is a bad idea for most of the list-of-topics/contents lists ..." User Moe Epsilon said: "Lists of topics is maintained like a WikiProject, not an article that provides disambiguation, and thus should have been moved to the Wikipedia namespace." Admin W.Marsh said: "Lists of lists are self-referential and shouldn't be articles. A list namespace might be a good idea but the portal namespace exists for pages that purely exist to organize links to articles."
  The Transhumanist is the main (only?) proponent of moving them to/keeping them in mainspace (see User talk:The Transhumanist#Contents and User talk:Quiddity/Archive 8#Contents pages and mirrors and Talk:List of overviews#Move to Wikipedia:List of overviews for his reasons, which I find partly compelling, and mostly confusing).
  (With the exception of List of academic disciplines, which we all seem to agree belongs in mainspace)
  If this were simple, I wouldn't have brought it here! And as I explained, only a handful of people watchlist Wikipedia:Contents (the low participation is a major problem in itself), so it isn't productive to discuss it there. --Quiddity 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem that I see with these pages is that they try to act as both an article and a table of contents. The problem I have with them being articles is that articles are not supposed to be formated to look fancy like these are. Also, like was mentioned earlier, their is no way for these pages to become featured lists because there is no way that they can be referenced. Being, it appears, the only person to move this article in the move log, I still support the move of this and the related pages. The Placebo Effect 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It remains to be seen if they can be referenced or not. "Topic" is a subject, "basic topic" is a subject, and membership in those subjects should be pretty easy to source. The Transhumanist    03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think they're fine how they are. Nothing wrong with making such general articles fancy, and I don't care what namespace the're in. Why is this an RFC, anyway? Seems to me watchers of this talk page are equipped to deal with the question. ←Ben^B4 02:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  There is an RfC because, as I explained twice above, there are very few people watching this page. If you "don't care" then please don't add to a thread pointlessly. --Quiddity 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe it would be best to move these to the Portal namespace. Seems like a logical place for them to me, essentially, being a portal through which users access the information.—Scott5114↗ 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  They don't fit within the current definition of what Portals are for (see lead at Portal:List of portals). Though I suppose it is an option to consider. --Quiddity 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Following the AfD of List of overviews by admin Coredesat, I've sent a note to the mailing list, requesting feedback. --Quiddity 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see them kept in mainspace. Think about what such lists are for. They are formatted as navigational devices for the reader of Wikipedia, quite possible the new and unfamiliar reader of Wikipedia, and they are also devices to highlight ways to browse content. Given that, directing readers into the project-space (where different rules apply) is nothing but confusing. Navigational structures can be part of the article space. The argument that they are "not articles" and therefore don't belong in article-space is nonsense: redirects, disambig pages and all the other lists "aren't articles" either by that logic, yet we're not going to move all the disambig pages to Wikipedia space. -- phoebe/(talk) 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a flawed argument. It is completley IMPOSSIBLE to move all redirects to project space. And secondly, I would support making a Disambiguation namespace to move DB pages out of article space and defluff our article count a little bit. Now this list doesn't belong in article space in my opinion. These pages are very much like portals, and if the first page in this series is a portal, then wither they all should be in article space, or portal space. The Placebo Effect 06:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not flawed at all. Tables of contents are every bit as much a part of the books they belong to as the rest of the content of those books. The main consideration here I think is that cross-namespace links, especially from article space to the Wikipedia namespace are discouraged if not blatantly disallowed. And lists need to be able to be linked to from the main namespace. That's really where they belong, with the articles they support. The Transhumanist    22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Tables of contents are not included in the article pages of a book. they are always in the roman numeral numbered pages, seperate. And how do portals fall into the no cross-namespace links rule? BTW, could you show me a link to this rule because I have not seen it. The Placebo Effect 04:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would leave everything in the wikipedia space. These aren't articles so that would be logical--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• there is no clear division, and there will always be room for debate. Common sense needs to be applied, case by case. The relevant question is: "is the page indexing Wikipedia, or is it an encyclopedic list?". Clear subpages of Wikipedia:Content obviously belong in Wikipedia: namespace. Otoh, things like list of academic disciplines are valid list articles that just happen to be linked from Wikiedia:Content. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia namespace is the home of the Wikipedia community. It really isn't part of the encyclopedia, and is intended mostly for administrative purposes. To have topical materials in the Wikipedia namespace is nothing but confusing. The lists of topics do more than serve as tables of contents, they show the structure of subjects (and knowledge as a whole) and in this respect are lists every bit as much as other lists covered by Wikipedia's list guideline, are therefore articles, and therefore belong in article space. That they are self-referential is irrelevant -- all lists are self-referential, and they as well as the list guideline are exceptions to the no self references guideline. Lists of basic topics, Lists of topics, and List of glossaries are each the main page of a set -- it makes no sense to move them away from their respecitive sets to another namespace. The Transhumanist    01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• These lists belong in Wikipedia namespace. Many people walk into a library or bookstore and look around thinking, "Aha, so this is how all of knowledge is organized," but they are wrong. Many equally valid systems of organizing knowledge have been devised. The chosen scope of each Wikipedia article, the inclusion or exclusion of articles in a category or list (unless it is an indisputable fact), and the boundaries of academic disciplines are the opinions of the compilers. Categories of knowledge that were developed by an authority in the outside world such as Dewey, LC or Roget could stay in the article namespace, but the unique organization schemes that were grown inhouse by Wikipedia's editors are original research. They are indeed useful as overviews of this encyclopedia's strengths and lacks, but they should not be candidates for featured lists. GUllman 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the 3 pages I listed above are also the names of their respective sets, it isn't clear to what lists you are referring to, just the 3 pages, or the entire sets? Note that the scope of the page "Lists of topics" is all lists on Wikipedia. To move them all to the Wikipedia namespace would require a larger venue of discussion. With respect to your last point, whether or not a list is eligible for featured list status depends upon if it can meet the requirements set by that department. "Basic geography" returns over 37,000 hits on Google, so it appears likely that the List of basic geography topics can be sourced as per the requirements of WP:FLC. The Transhumanist    17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• The lists pages that were moved recently should indeed be in Portal namespace, in my opinion. Many portals have subpages that list the articles used at that portal. That is exactly what should be done here. Possibly Portal:Contents is needed to act as a portal from which to browse Wikipedia. These list pagse could be subpages of that portal. Carcharoth 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No one has as of yet explored the possibility of sourcing these 3 pages. If they can be sourced, with each member of the lists being verified as a "topic" or a "basic topic", then the lists won't differ from any other list on Wikipedia. The glossaries page presents a problem, and would probably need to be renamed to "List of terms" or "List of topics (annotated)". It is also important to look at the specific reasons why they are being moved, to identify any precedents which may be set by moving them. For example, it might be seen that they are being moved because they are lists of lists, leading editors to moving other lists of lists out of the main namespace, such as Lists of philosophers. There were over 80 lists of lists the last time I checked. And what about expanded lists, where the base page retains the singular "List" in its title? (For example, see List of philosophical topics). In the case that those are treated differently, note that all lists of lists can be converted to the expansion model, including the 3 pages at issue. If lists that grow so large that they become lists of lists all of a sudden disappear to portal space, then things could get very confusing, especially for beginners. The Transhumanist    17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Examples for Carcharoth's point: Portal:Energy/Explore and Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics, which I suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Lists#A_bold_summary, and is what TT is responding to below. --Quiddity 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are excellent lists as subpages of portals. Less good ones, but a start towards something like that, is seen at List of Middle-earth articles by category, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/List of Middle-earth topics and Portal:Middle-earth/Pages, and Portal:Middle-earth/Categories. So I think there is plenty of scope within Portals to do this sort of thing. Carcharoth 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Then there's the issue of linking to a portal subpage from an article. All of the basic topics lists and many of the lists of topics are included in the see also sections of the articles which cover the same subjects. What will happen to those links? The Transhumanist    17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with linking to such portal pages. Increasingly, now, I see people linking from articles to categories. Not something to be overdone, but something that is useful. Possibly linking to categories and portals is best done with a "sisterlinks" type template (the one that links to Commons and Wikiquote and stuff like that). I know people are meant to access categories from the tags at the bottom, but sometimes I think a more prominent pointer towards a useful (usually eponymous) category is needed. Carcharoth 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    • But what about the community? Editors tend to enforce Wikipedia's guidelines with near religious fanaticism. We need to clarify what the guidelines are concerning cross-namespace links like these. The Transhumanist    02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Is the default scope of a search the main namespace only? If so, then it will no longer be as useful for searching lists if many of them are moved to portal space. When I use the search box, portal pages don't even show up on there. The Transhumanist    17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a very good point. I really hope portal pages are showing up in searches. If not, why not! This is a question that really needs answering before the debate can go any further, as it applies to all pages in Portal space. Carcharoth 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)