This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of homeschooling-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hello, I'm just wondering why this alphabetic list needs to be turned into sections with categories which are already listed at Portal:Education? Also, I agree with whoever it was on User:Rfrisbie's talk page who said that it is easier to find things when they are set out as points, not one after the other on one line. The "horizontal" style is apparently "preferred if there are only a few entries in the list" (Help:List) - which definitely does not apply here. Saint|swithin
Hi everyone. Here's my take on this list. One of the disadvantage of lists is they "May be redundant with categories if not formatted, annotated, or equipped with invisible links." To me that's the ultimate form of redundancy that should be avoided. Several large lists, such as List of religious topics and List of philosophies use the horizontal format. To me and others who use this style of list, it's a matter of minimizing "waisted space," particularly when printing the list.
As far as redundancy with the portal goes, the Education by Country list is complete here. It's only a sampling on the portal page. The other three topical lists basically are the same size, but they have room to grow here, where they will remain a sampling at the portal. Finally, I think it's a good thing to have multiple ways of presenting access to content. That's the type of synergy mentioned at the Categories, lists, and series boxes page.
I'm sure if I'm the only one who feels this way, the list will be changed back soon enough. I understand everyone's tastes will not be the same on this matter. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean about synergy and presenting things in different ways, but there is also a link at the start of the article to List of education articles by country which is comprehensive. Unless anyone else is keen on having that part here too, perhaps we could remove the "by country" section here.
I'm also moving the alphabetic list to the start of the page, as the title is "List of education topics", and it may be confusing for the first thing on the page to actually be something else.
I guess the horizontal/vertical thing is a matter of taste. The "wasting space" argument doesn't really do anything for me, though: even printed encyclopaedias "waste" space and list words vertically to make the entries easier to find. But perhaps I'm just biased as my eyesight isn't too good :-) Saint|swithin
So be it. I don't see how topical sections in a "List of education topics" is confusing, but I won't beat a dead horse. Rfrisbietalk 12:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, im a project worker on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages, we recently came up against the article Management Studies. The article itself is fairly worthless, contains unsalvageable vanity and no context, and has been prod nominated, but i am pretty confident it could be made into a useful redirect to one of the topics listed here. As people who i assume know more about educational topics than i pretend to, which redirect do you reckon is appropriate? Jdcooper 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with this list is the imposibility of keeping it current. There are just too many articles being added to the education category to have any practical way of maintaining this list. It also currently contains several deleted or never created articles. Another major issue with the list is it choice of topics vs articles. It is basicly a list of articles many of which are not topical in nature. As such, I find it impossible to see how it would comply with WP:NPOV. It is simply a list of articles that the editors have considered of value listing while ignoring many other articles. There is just no guideline in place to determine what belongs on this list and what does not. But with no one maintaining this list on a regular basis, it quickly becomes a misleading tool. Dbiel(Talk) 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)