Talk:Outline of Indonesia

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines".

The Transhumanist 00:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to

See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Added

The alternate list - which is maintained as a red link free list SatuSuro 03:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also if anyone is even thinking of trying to make a list of articles - it needs very serious discussion at the WP Indonesia discusssion page - please - at least acknowledge the facty the project exists when dealing with such issues - thanks SatuSuro 03:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tips for developing country outlines

Instructions for developing country outlines is located at Wikipedia:Outlines (while that section is complete, the page is a draft, and will be moved to the Wikipedia namespace when completed). The Transhumanist 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A note concerning redlinks...

Many of the entries (and their links) are standard across all of the country outlines, to aid readers, especially young readers, in comparing countries to each other.

So if this country doesn't have any of a particular entry, like navies, please don't delete the entry. Instead, complete it with "none" (and a brief explanation as to why, for example, "- x is a landlocked country with no ports"). If the explanation exists in an article on Wikipedia, then click on the redlink and create a redirect to that location. See Wikipedia:Redirect, WP:Section linking, and Help:Section#Section_linking.

Standard redlinks (article names) were also chosen based on how country coverage tipically expands. This makes the standard names for these subtopics widely available and easily accessible. So please do not remove those redlinks, for they will turn blue eventually. In the meantime, they can be redirected to the section of whatever article has the relevant information, if any. See Wikipedia:Redirect, WP:Section linking, and Help:Section#Section_linking.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: To discuss the standard design of the country outlines, or of outlines in general, do so on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject talk page.

Guidelines for outlines

Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Wikipedia:Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check and fix the government section

The government section needs to be checked for accuracy. The initial data placed in the government branches sections was generated by template, and the data didn't fit all countries.

So those sections need to be looked over, and fixed if needed.

Please help.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: If you'd like to help out with other tasks concerning Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, please drop me a note on my talk page.

Oppose undiscussed merge

I oppose the merge done by Verbal without discussion. I'm restoring the page, which was designed as part of the set of outlines at WP:OOK, and which matches the format and structure of the other outlines in the set for ease of comparison between countries. The Transhumanist 20:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no merge, this article was a duplicate of the other, hence replaced with a redirect to the article which follows naming conventions and has primacy. I oppose the recreation of this duplicate. Verbal chat 20:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this article was built from scratch, applying the same template that was used to create the other country outlines in the WP:OOK, which it matches in structure for ease of browsing and for ease of comparison between countries. Getting rid of it, that is, deleting it by replacing it with a redirect, is not appropriate. If you would like to delete the page, then bring it to AfD. The Transhumanist 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One, the page has not been deleted, Two, the page is a duplicate. "Outlines" are not part of the accepted wikipedia navigation pages, and have not been approved by the community. I have no interest in deleting the page, it still exists at the redirect target. Verbal chat 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing it with a redirect has the same effect as deleting the page, and is a form of deletion. Even deleted pages aren't actually deleted, they are made so they do not appear when the link to them is clicked, which is what you're attempting to do. If you want to get rid of the page, nominate it at WP:AfD. The page is not a copy/paste, was built from scratch, and therefore is not a duplicate. The Transhumanist 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, there is opposition to your making this page disappear. There is no consensus to get rid of this page. I'm reverting your merge/blanking/deletion/redirection tactic. The Transhumanist 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Transhumanist. Whether or not Outlines as a format garnered formal community approval before they were created is really irrelevant. If there is opposition to the page's existence, take it to an AfD. Redirecting without doing so is effectively deletion without any community input. While creating content doesn't require community consent before it happens, deleting it does. Tiamut^talk 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of ongoing edit-warring, I have now protected the page for two weeks. Please discuss the matter here and feel free to ask me to unprotect earlier if a consensus has been reached. Ucucha 14:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the discussion here as it involved the other list as well - the issue should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia as it involved the 2 lists and their usage within the Indonesian project - it affects the project and how it is navigated - the arguments above seem to be ignoring that point SatuSuro 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the need for the page. It seems to be a cookie cutter approach hence all the red links. And, there used to be a lot of prose which significantly doubled up on the Indonesia article. As it stands, it's a combination of the Indonesia article, the Indonesia list page, and the Indonesia category system - yet, it is a lousy version of each of these.

And yes, i know that other pages exist and that someone did a lot of work on them. --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a simple duplicate, a poor content fork, of the list and is an example of a small coterie of editors trying to enforce their opinion, without review, on the rest of us. This article should be replaced with a redirect to the navigation page which has the support of the wikipedia community. This page has no support and should simply be redirected. Verbal chat 14:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The opposite could be as easily considered as well - that the Indonesia project (hardly the wikipedia community) is trying to enforce its list against that of the the Outline project - the fact that I ask for the discussion here to go to the project page - as it is the project is affected - and that the suggestion ss ignored suggests that there is some selective reading and conversation here - simply be redirected is not an acceptable way to do it.

There are two projects affected - OOK and Indonesia - It would be AGF abd civil to try a discussion at the project pages - if there is after some time no response, well then maybe some form of negotiation between the Outline project and the Indonesia project might be possible - reverts and moves - without adequate discussion with adequate consensus is going to be pointless, specially if the discussion continues here - these are larger issues than any one editors problems with parallel articles - it involves 2 projects - they need to be considered... SatuSuro 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While I am strongly of the opinion that the "outline" is redundant and of poor quality and should be removed, I don't believe it should be done by a bold redirect. It should go through to afd (which I believe will fail - sigh). Given that we are likely to have to put up with it, I will do some major pruning. Why does it need a link to Eastern Hemisphere for example? Ridiculous. I'm glad though that the lead and history sections from Indonesia article are no longer repeated here as they were previously. --Merbabu (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And why is there half a screen's worth of links to international organisations? --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No move no comment

As this article is part of a much larger cross wiki stoush between Transhumanist and Verbal - I see no reason why the Indonesian project has to be a pawn in their particular issues - I consider the matter closed and left as it is - as the Indonesian project will not benefit from editors issues like these being projected onto this project. SatuSuro 01:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists have the backing of the community, not just the indionesia project. Outlines have no such support. This is a poor duplicate full of meaningless and confusing redirects. The Transhumanist has been asked repeatedly to get support for outlines and refuses. Unless consensus is established this article should be redirected or deleted. Verbal chat 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I and I think SatuSuro share your sentiment - except for your last sentence. He's saying, and I agree, that this is beyond the wikipedia project. And, redirecting is not the proper process. Afd is.

Having said that, I think we are stuck with the outline unless there is a good outcome at afd. Thus, the sooner this article is reopened (ie, people stop the silly redirect war), so I can get in a clean out the rubbish, the better. --Merbabu (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless consensus is established this article should be redirected or deleted - that is a total misunderstanding of what wikipedia is WP:ABOUT - and shows no understanding of process on wikipedia - which is why we do not need to be part of the verbal and tranhumanist and argument - take it somewhere else please - and learn a bit about process - some AGF and some idea of what WP:NOT might mean in the trying to avoid process

I do not think Verbal and tranhusmanist should have their arguments (and verbals reverts of transhumanists messages show little understanding of general problem solving) somewhere else rather than on obscure talk pages - take it to RFC or a larger scope noticeboard - your comments are a complete waste of time here SatuSuro 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your posts on topic and assume good faith. Outlines have strong opposition, and duplicate functionality of lists, categories, and other navigational elements that have consensus support. Outlines have consistently failed to gain any support, and this one outline (which we should restrict ourselves to here) is completely redundant and uneccessary, creating extra work for the project while ignoring policies and guidelines that are well established and well supported (on lists, the MOS, etc). What benefit to the project does this incoherent list add? Verbal chat 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no good faith in any ignoring process and trying to subvert it, as to the rest I have never seen much of the combatants actually editing anywhere near this project and really wonder at the pronouncements.. I objected to the outline when it first happened, and in principle still do - but I would defend the right of correct process - to either keep and improve - or to take it through any process rather than edit wars.

Just in case whoever reads this - hasnt read earlier comments adequately the comments here means this editor objects to (1) repeatedly redirecting outlines to an old and not maintained list (2) not actually going to Afd or somewhere else regarding the issue - (3) creating redirects and actually repeating actions without discussing anywhere. - which has lead to the block on editing the article. How is that for AGF.

completely redundant and uneccessary, creating extra work for the project while ignoring policies and guidelines that are well established and well supported -

That could easily be said for inadequately personned Indonesian project that has so few active editors - that the issues raised are really irrelevent - as both the outline list and the existing list are open for a lot of improvement to come up to standard - if one actually goes to the project talk page as suggested many lines above here - it is possible to see the three examples on that page - category tree, and the headings lists of both lists - both are redundant and inadequate in view of the category structure and the person power available currently in this project to deal with either... to criticise one against the other to make an argument is to miss the point as they are both not adequately relevant to the current state of the Indonesian project category tree or article list

(Refactored to read as a general comment to any reader regardless of involvement) SatuSuro 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough

I think the redirectors should provide an undertaking not to redirect the article again. While I agree that it's redundant, I'd rather improve it if we're to be stuck with it. And, as long as it keeps getting redirected, then this page will be locked.

Please provide that undertaking now. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed maintenance on country outlines

Please check this outline for the following problems, and fix if present:

• If the Local government section is empty (or only has a red "main" link), please remove the section. (If it has a blue "main" link, do not remove).
• Underdeveloped Education section - add more links.
• Redlinks that are unlikely to ever turn blue - remove or delink as appropriate.
• Out-of-date incumbant names - remove. No need to add the new incumbants, as the links to the articles on the position titles should suffice.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 23:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)