User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

write a message
(please provide a subject/headline and remember to sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~ )

Please do not post RfA spam here. Thank you.

User:The Transhumanist/Country outlines
User:The Transhumanist/List of country outline government sections
User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country
{{subst:dp cadj|}}
{{subst:dp cadj|country name}}
User:The Transhumanist/List of official endonyms of present-day nations and states
User:The Transhumanist/list of country adjectivals
User talk:Robert Skyhawk/Country Outline task list
User:The Transhumanist/Country outlines of the Americas
User:The Transhumanist/Zlerman tasks
User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox27 - country lists
User:Thehelpfulone/Country demographics articles
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists
      Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge
Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography
      Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 24#List of notable people who wore the bowler hat
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox24|}}
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox23|}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness
User:The Transhumanist/Country list
Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 23#Need help filling in data
Wikipedia:Linky tutorial
Wikipedia:Community bulletin board
google WP search
User:ChiragPatnaik/Air Forces
User:Thehelpfulone/Country list
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Worldbot

Sentence outline
Topic outline

Wikipedia:Quality control
Wikipedia:Index templates


New task 02/14/2009[edit]

Here's a fill-in task similar to the capital-naming activity you just did.

Please complete the following entry for all the country outlines (where "x" is each country's name), by adding the name of the currency of each country (linked).

Some of them are already completed.

You can find the currency names at List of circulating currencies.

Good luck. Have fun.

The Transhumanist 00:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Cheers, Sounds fun. I won't be able to start until the ned of the week though - Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 11:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Find / Replace for my bot[edit]

Hi there!

I was wondering if you could give me a simple find / replace task for my bot to do with AWB, to allow it to complete the 20 trial edits required before it is approved.


The Helpful One 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To the pages listed at user:The Transhumanist/Country outlines, replace:
"The following topic outline is provided"
"The following [[topic outline]] is provided"
Without the quotes, of course.
The Transhumanist 04:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Task complete, my bot is now approved for this task. The Helpful One 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

General Update: Highfields[edit]

I have just finished the capital replacing task and at the weekend I will move onto the currencies replace task. For that task do you want me to just link the currencies or put ISO codes too?

On the capitals, as you said some, especially the later ones, only had 1 link to capital so I just did the 1 it had and left it for someone else to replace the other. On Singapore, the capital links have been completely removed, probably because, as a city state, it is it's own capital, but I still think it needs a link, even if it's too itself, so I'll leave them for you!

As for the regex tasks you suggested, my AWB doesn't seem to be working at the moment, I'll have to fiddle around with it so I may not be able to help there!

Over and out - Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We've got a couple team members with bots, so one of them will be replacing the missing capital links (actually, a whole missing subsection). Then filling in the capitals will be easy, since the look up will be on the same page.
Currently, the bot guys are learning regex, which can do complex search and replaces, but not stat fill-ins. Stat fill-ins will take a scripting or programming language, which is the next step. But I'm going to let them get up to speed with regex before I pile that on them.  :)
Thank you for the heads up on Singapore. I'll fix that.
Before now, I didn't even know what an ISO currency code was (I just looked it up). Very good idea. Thank you for suggesting it. I agree with you, since it is the international standard code, that it should be included. Please add it below the currency entry as an indented bulleted link starting with "ISO currency code: ".
Thank you.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do, I'll start tomorrow! Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Regex task 2 lines[edit]

Hi there,

For this task - do I use the pages listed at User:The Transhumanist/Country outlines?

The Helpful One 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about the ambiguity. The Transhumanist 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: A two-step search/replace[edit]

Hi again,

Pass 1 - should it be /sandbox29 instead of /Sandbox29?

The Helpful One 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. Either should work. The file is named /Sandbox29. (A quick look at Special:PrefixIndex would have answered your question immediately - which is better than waiting on me). The Transhumanist 22:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK,  Done pass 1, some pages were skipped:
I had to do a Pass 1.5 to substitute the templates to make Pass 2 work. Some pages were skipped on pass 1.5:
Now, I'm Doing... Pass 2. The Helpful One 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
For the pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, I have changed the find/replace as appropriate to make it match the changes in the mainspace. The Helpful One 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done Pass 2 - see the list of skipped pages below. The Helpful One 13:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I use the same method as Robert - substituting the template. Anymore tasks for Thehelpfulbot? :) The Helpful One 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: List creation tasks (using AWB)[edit]

List one[edit]

There's no articles on the list - am I missing something? The Helpful One 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List two[edit]

There's no articles on the list either! - am I missing something? The Helpful One 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I'd say we're missing something.

Did you include the quotes? That would ruin the search.

If not, try dropping the equals sign from the search strings, and try again.

The Transhumanist 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried both of these, still no list! :S The Helpful One 13:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please upgrade your AWB usage to include a bot![edit]

Sure, I'll ask Thehelpfulone about it on IRC.

...if Wikipedia ever works right. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Country topic coverage[edit]

Hi there, sorry that I've been absent; the real world has been interfering with my virtual life again. Reading your update, it seems like everyone has everything under control. I'd just like to offer up my vast quantities of free time. I have OS issues with AWB and Linky crashes my browser, so if you have any sticky exception type task that need a human to sit through the tedium, I'm well suited for that sort of thing. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But is Firefox fairly stable on your system?
Because WikEd is perfect for a lot of the tasks that need to be done.
If not, then there are plenty of tasks that can be done manually. But if we can speed them up with any degree of automation, we should attempt to do so.
OK, one more question: do you have a macro program? Macro Express is the best one I've found so far, but it costs (around $40). A popular free one is AutoHotkey, though I've never used it.
Macros can really speed things up.
I've got lots of manual tasks that need work right now. Let me know, and I'll get you started!
The Transhumanist 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics work[edit]

As a Juliancolton-talk page stalker, I have seen you around a lot, asking Julian to do some Demographics work. I looked around, and some of the bot work you are doing seems somewhat interesting. Is there any way that I could help? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Julian is cool, and his talk page has become an interesting hub of activity. I understand why you lurk there.
First things first, do you have a bot account? If so, what is it called?
I have a bot account, User:NWBot, but it does not have a flag. I'd be willing to go through the BRFA process, but I hope I still remember the password :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Next question: are you registered to use AWB, and do you have it installed?
Yep :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: we find WP:WikEd and WP:LINKY invaluable tools for batch editing (WikEd for creating input lists (using its search/replace features, and Linky for loading lots of pages into subwindows ("tabs") in Firefox - which brings Firefox's tab controls into play). Which brings us to the next question:
Do you have Firefox, WP:WikEd, and WP:LINKY installed?
Got both of those. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also looking for those rare individuals who are experienced macro users (a rare breed), or willing to become such.
Not exactly sure what that is. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that currently, there are some non-bot tasks that are bottlenecking us that need the close interactive attention of dedicated editors.
For example, in order to apply AWB effectively to the CIA World Factbook Demographics statistics (which are in really sad shape) on the "Demographics of" country pages, we need a key - a standard string we can target for filtering and skipping within AWB - so we can target just the pages with the CIA stat sets, to minimize search/replace errors.
That key shall be the heading for that section - we're standardizing it for all these pages. Unfortunately, this has to be done manually (or semi-manually - as AWB and LINKY can speed up tasks like this to some degree).
The demographics work is a tangent my team has taken on, since it supports our main focus which is the development of the geography branch of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, specifically its outlines on the World's countries. There are about 250 pages in that set, and this has proved to be a huge undertaking. We are trying to get these ready to move to article space, and the vast majority of our tasks pertain to these outlines.
We could sure use your help! Would you like to join our team?
Sure! NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And while lots of bot tasks are in the pipeline, we have just as many interactive AWB/LINKY semi-automated batch tasks that need to be done, including a lot of (template) substitution work as well.
Right now, I need the most help on interactive tasks, though if you choose to help here, I'll be sure to throw in plenty of bot tasks (assuming you are set up to do them) over time.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 21:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I replied in line; it seemed easier that way :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Well, can you remember the password to your bot account?!!!

A macro program lets you record keystroke sequences (what you type in on your keyboard) and play them back by assigning them to a "hot key" that you press to activate the macro. Using macros, you can automate just about any repetitive task on your computer. The best macros are programmable, allowing you to use variables, input breaks (like "Y/N?"), and lots of other powerful features.

The macro program I'm experienced with allows me to execute repetitive tasks across Windows (multi-window operations in which the macro switches windows to do something in each, like grab some data from one, and insert it in another).

Used in combination with Linky, macro programs are exceedingly powerful - you can use them to process all the pages you've loaded into tabs, save each page, and close out each tab before moving on to the next one. Note that repetitive macros are by definition bots, and so they fall under Wikipedia's bot guidelines. But you can easily make macros that are interactive.

However, note that at the bot department it was stated that we don't need bot approval to use bots on the country outlines. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Worldbot for details.

My guess is that macro proficiency would increase your productivity by at least a factor of 3 on this and similar projects.

See if you can understand AutoHotkey - I never bothered with it because Macro Express does just about everything I can think of for it to do.

By the way, welcome to the team.

The Transhumanist 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first assignment: add headings and lead sections to "Demographics of" country articles[edit]

This task has two parts for each page you edit:

  1. Add a lead section to those articles that lack one
  2. Standardize the heading for the CIA World Factbook Demographics statistics (in those articles that have that set of statistics), and add a standard section lead to the section.

The first thing you need to do is familiarize yourself with the CIA demographics statistics set so you can recognize the complete set when you see it.

Here's the list of the country demographics articles: User:The Transhumanist/Country demographics articles.

Using Linky, from that page you can load 99 of them at a time into tabs to make them easy to inspect. (Highlight an area of the screen and then right-click - select Linky from the pop-up menu and follow the instructions / select from the options provided). When you are done looking at one article, press Ctrl-W, and that tab will be closed and the contents of the next tab will be displayed almost instantly on you screen.

We've already formatted many of them (like about half of them). You'll notice when you get to the ones with crappy formatting. Most of those need the new standard heading.

After you've gotten good at spotting the stat set, I need you to add the standard section heading and section lead to each article that presents the stat set.

You also need to make sure that the stats are included under the same heading. Some editors have divided it up into separate sections, without a heading for the stat set as a whole! You need to consolidate the various sections as subheadings under the standard heading.

Set the heading level of the stat set to whatever works for each specific article. On most pages, the stat sets fits well at the end as under a level 2 heading. On other pages it needs to be a subheading of an existing over-arching demographics statistics section (the CIA isn't the only source for this kind of information after all).

If the stat set has been heavily modified with material from additional sources, you should skip those, unless the alternate sources have been provided as citations.

Don't worry about reformatting all the statistics. Once the heading is in place, we'll be able to automate much of the format fixing using AWB-bots, targetting just those pages that include the heading.

What to do[edit]

Missing lead section[edit]

When you come across a "Demographics of" article that has no lead section, place this at the top of the page (after any hat notes - you know, wherever the lead paragraph should be):

{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox23|country name}}

Where it says "country name" type in the country's name.

Missing standard heading[edit]

When you come across the CIA demographics statistics set that doesn't yet have the standard heading, replace its current heading with this:

{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox26}}

The standard heading and section lead is in that sandbox.

Make sure all the CIA stats fall under that section, adjusting the levels of any other headings used for it, accordingly.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Good luck[edit]

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at NuclearWarfare's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How goes it?[edit]

Any luck on creating the regex for the latest task?

(See: User talk:Robert Skyhawk/Country Outline task list#Completing "Population of " link)

The Transhumanist 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, there's no apparent way to do this with RegEx that I can see...I think WP:VPT or perhaps WP:RD is my next stop. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 04:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Another way has occurred to me on how we can to this. I've revised the task at User talk:Robert Skyhawk/Country Outline task list.
Good luck.
Have fun.
By the way, please drop me a note on my talk page when you reply elsewhere, to take advantage of Wikipedia's message alert feature. Thank you.
The Transhumanist 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pass one: Doing... Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pass one  Done. Pass two: Doing... See below. -Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight Problem...3 passes will be needed[edit]

When I did Pass 1, there's a problem with the parser functions that we overlooked. The first pass involved placing the command {{PAGENAME}} in links, however, we didn't subst: it, meaning that in the wikicode, the name of the page still appears as {{PAGENAME}}. So, the second Find & Replace won't give us anything, since the text "Topic Outlne of" doesn't actually exist in the wikicode.

I can fix this, but it will involve going through each of the articles and changing {{PAGENAME}} to {{subst:PAGENAME}}, then making the pass that will remove "Topic Outline of". Sorry that neither of us caught this.

By the way, instead of just removing "Topic Outline of", I should probably be removing the whole "Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic Outlines..." bit, right?

Thanks, Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The fix is  Done. Starting on the original second pass now. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: redirect request[edit]

 DoneJuliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JCbot[edit]

Are there any specific tasks that need to be done? Apparently that needs to be specified in order for the bot to be approved. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Before we can do the bot task[edit]

I've got plenty of complex bot (2-stage, substitution-based) tasks and plenty of interactive AWB tasks to assign.

But I can't at the moment find any simple search/replace bot tasks (the best type to seek bot approval with - keeps things simple).

So I might as well explain how to do this so that someone besides me knows in case I'm not always around. And there's no time like the present to prepare for the future. So, here it goes...

This will take some extensive Google searching to see if there are any new common country-related articles that can be added as standard links. (All it usually takes to add them in is a simple regex two-line search/replace - but I digress, now back to Google...).

The idea is to use Google's "domain-specific" and "title only" advanced search features to hunt for new trends on Wikipedia in country coverage.

Basically, in google you type in "of x". (Where "x" is a country name). Then click on Advanced search, and configure it to "title only" and add Wikipedia's URL to the domain field. As you get up to speed with this technique, you'll probably start editing the url directly in the url field at the top of your browser, but you could skip to an advanced method and make an url list of google searches on a user page and load them with Linky (this technique speeds up multi-Google searches immensely).

In the results, you'll recognize a lot of the article names on there (guess how I found the article names for the country outlines in the first place!) Look over the results, keeping an eye out for article names that are not already included in the country outlines.

(Using "-subject", where "subject" is the name of a subject, you can eliminate a lot of the standard subjects already in use, to make it easier to spot new ones in your results).

Then repeat for "in x", and look them over as above.

If you use the beginner technique, repeat the operation for about 50 major countries (their content gets developed and expanded faster, and you are more likely to see new trends arise with them - to find major countries, see the List of countries by population).

Once you think you've identified a new standard country article type, make a list that includes that article name for all of the countries of the world. This will show how extensive this article type has become, by the bluelinks that show up in the list. To make the list, you could copy User:The Transhumanist/Country demographics articles, and use WP:WikEd to change "Demographics of" to "z of". (Where "z" is the subject name, producing "rainfall of", or whatever).

(If the title has "in" instead of "of", well, you know what to do).

If it looks like a trend in coverage development is emerging, that is, like all countries' coverage will eventually expand to include the new article type, contact me, and I'll describe the bot task needed to add it into the country outlines.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ran into a problem with "English exonyms"[edit]


Will you add the "country name" in afterwards?

Yes I am having fun! Well Thehelpfulbot is having all the fun! ;)

The Helpful One 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where entries are blank, somebody will fill them in, eventually. There are quite a few!
The Transhumanist 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done, some skipped, see below. The Helpful One 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Typo Fix[edit]

Hi there,

 Done this task, some pages were skipped:

The Helpful One 21:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. Special Assignment[edit]

I've contacted our friend Rich, will let you know when he replies. Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspected it was something complex.  :)
We've got our (home)work cut out for us.
The Transhumanist 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name calling[edit]

In this edit you mention name calling, what name calling? I always try to avoid the fruitless and childish endeavor of ad hominem attacks. Chillum 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"American Gay". Maybe I misinterpreted the context. If so, I apologize. By the way, keep up your excellent vigilance in spotting problems.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 23:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a disagreement as to whether the user User:American Gay should have a username block or not. I can understand how that was hard to realize without the context I knew Mr. Juliancolton had. No worries. Keep enforcing civility as it all that prevents us from turning into a pack of crazy pigs! Chillum 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Transhumanist, I am sorry for my wikibreak, but it looks like it may be continous, I try to stay active but it is hard. Still I will eventually help out.

MadadudeMy Talk Page 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Jump in whenever you are ready. Until then and thereafter, good fortunes to you. The Transhumanist 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You green-blooded pointy-eared computer... *shakes fist* HalfShadow 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You're being...     illogical.
The Transhumanist 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
'Of all the souls I have known...His was the most....human'. HalfShadow 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject Banner[edit]

It seems to me that the project could use a new talk page header--we currently have Template:WikiProject LOBT, but the project isn't even called that anymore. So, I've made User:Robert Skyhawk/Outline of knowledge template, which you are free to edit (I may use {{inuse}} tags when I'm doing something large). I think that once we get to a certain point, with your approval I'll move it into Template space, then we can redirect the old template to the new one. We may also consider using my bot/AWB to put the template on all of the project's pages. Any thoughts? Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative. I like that! It's like a breath of fresh air.
Yes, I do have some thoughts...
An outline's title specifies what subject it is an outline of. For example "Outline of geography", "Outline of surgery", etc. "Outline of knowledge" means knowledge itself is the subject being outlined. In this context, "Outlines of knowledge" would mean more than one presentation (or publication). E.g.: "Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge" and Encyclopædia Britannica's "Propaedia" are both outlines of knowledge. The Propaedia is hundreds of pages long, and similarly, Wikipedia's OOK is split into hundreds of pages (each an outline unto itself).
I think we should avoid use of "Outline of knowledge" in the plural ("Outlines of knowledge"), as the singular already refers to the entire set of outlines on Wikipedia. Outlines of lesser scope (OOK's component outlines) can be referred to simply as "outlines", but if we refer to them as a set or page class, I think it's best to refer to them by their title as a whole: "Outline of knowledge".
Note: we shouldn't use "Subject outline" in outline titles, as the term is redundant (technically, the content of every outline is a subject, even if the subject is a speech, a book, etc.).
By the way, we're in the process of (gradually) phasing out "Topic" from the titles, because none of our outlines fit the strict definition of "topic outline" (an outline comprised entirely of topic names, as opposed to a "sentence outline" which is composed of sentences) - outlines on Wikipedia are more of a hybrid, and they are becoming more so over time (with the addition of lead paragraphs, annotations, etc.).
Concerning the WikiProject's banner, it is usually better to rename the existing banner in order to keep its page history intact. Replacing and then redirecting the original to the new version buries part of the page history. I've updated and renamed the banner, customizing the text because WPBanner's boilerplate prose just doesn't fit contextually. I've also retained the banner's focus on recruiting. Feel free to improve the banner as you see fit. The Transhumanist 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That template looks pretty good...perhaps we should mainstream the template and add it to all of our outlines' talk pages, (easily doable, of course, with AWB) but this will take BFRA approval (mainspace...) unless someone with AWB just does it themselves, manually pressing the save button. In any case, I think it should probably wait until our immediate tasks are dealt with.

I'm not really sure if that's my thing.[edit]

I'm more of a gnome: Tidy up what's already there, maybe add a fact or two that isn't already listed. There are only a couple of situations in which I've actually added significant information to an article. Generally my thing is cleaning up what's there and, of course, vandal repair. HalfShadow 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you like to make lots of little changes here and there? The Transhumanist 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
More or less, yeah. I also generally tend towards the fictional stuff. I don't think of myself as a poster, more of an editor: I make what's already there read better. Which isn't to say I can't be of help, I'm just not seeing any obvious way I could be. I'm not saying no, though. HalfShadow 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool. That's what I thought. One major type of WikiGnome activity and page improvement is fixing redlinks. And we've got lots of redlinks. I like to call fixing redlinks "bluelinking". We need as many WikiGnomes as we can get to bluelink these pages. If you are interested, please let me know. (Please don't edit our redlinks! They're standardized. Instead, rename a misnamed page to the title in the redlink, or create a redirect leading to wherever the information is).
By the way, what method do you use to browse Wikipedia? That is, do you browse conventionally (clicking on one link at a time, waiting for the page to load, and then clicking on another link, etc.), or do you batch-browse (using Linky to load many pages into browser tabs and then using Firefox's tab controls to rapidly switch between tabs to look at the various pages)?
Just curious.  :)
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I use the conventional method. Unless I'm dealing with vandalism, I feel there's no real hurry, and besides when I do tidy up, it's generally stuff I'm looking at for my own interest, so I like having my full attention on it. I'm not a multi-tasker; slow and steady is good enough for me. I'm currently using Chrome, so I think in theory I could use Linky, but I'm not that sort of editor. Besides, concentrating on multiple things just raises the possibilty of my making a mistake. My way is slower, but I feel I do a more thorough job. HalfShadow 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about editing. I was talking about browsing (reading). The "by the way" discussion isn't about multi-tasking (I can't read two pages at the same time, can you?). It's about not waiting. Waiting is a waste of time. When you click on a link, you have to wait for the page to load (which can take several seconds per page, and that adds up quick). And during that time your attention isn't on the page, as the page isn't in front of you yet (nothing is). Switching between tabs is almost instantaneous. Page-queueing (loading pages into tabs) with Linky also greatly reduces the need for backtracking, which also saves time. Your computer should wait for you, not the other way around.  ;) If you'd like to minimize your microwaits, give Linky a try. I find most people can't appreciate its power until they've actually tried it for awhile. Then they can't live without it.  :) The Transhumanist 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread that. Load speeds really aren't much of an issue with me (I have a cable modem); pages usually load more or less instantaneously. There are times when Wiki 'bogs down' but when that happens it tends to be happening to everyone else, too. I may try Linky out anyway, but I'm not sure it's compatible with Chrome. HalfShadow 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Linky is a Firefox add-on. Opera has a Linky-like feature built-in. Maybe Chrome does too. In my opinion, Linky alone makes Firefox worth switching to. The Transhumanist 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Linky" in Opera, and other comments on my talk page[edit]

Thanks for the comments. The Linky equivalent in Opera is part of Opera's "Panel" feature, of which Firefox's AIOS extension is essentially a clone. Opera's "Panel" is divided into 16 default sections or panels (and you can add your own custom ones) of which the "Links Panel" is one. The others are not unfamiliar: "Bookmarks", "History", "Transfers", "Windows", etc. - basic browser features. So Links is treated as such.

Also, not wanting to assume too much, but judging by your authored "howtos" on browser use, you seem like the type of Wikipedian to whom Opera would be well suited in general (sorry, shameless plug) - i.e. customisation for highly optimised efficient power-use. Have you tried it? Technically it doesn't have the potential for customisation that Firefox does with it's extension framework (as Opera doesn't really have one as such), but the extent of it's built in features and the extent of their customisability allow you to do so many things, some of which I'm sure noone has thought to make a Firefox extension for.

On joining the OTS team, I'm not sure how much time I'd have to dedicate - joined Wikipedia a few months ago after years of dedicated use (as a reader) with the optimistic hope of becoming a massive regular contributor - hasn't quite worked out due to various things but I'm still hopeful so if I find it (time) I'll definitely have a look in. Although geography is not my forte, any plans to move on to another topic soon, or are there multiple things being worked upon? ɹəəpıɔnı 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pick a subject! Then check Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge. If your subject is there, develop its outline. If it isn't, then create an outline for it!
The current team effort will probably take about another year (but we seem to be accelerating, so it might be less).
But I keep an eye on the whole Outline of knowledge as well. So if you start working on something, I'll be on hand if you need advice or assistance.
The Transhumanist 02:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on the 3-pass task[edit]

Hi. I got your latest task, and will get started soon, but I wanted to let you know that I've found a way to eliminate the pass throwing the subst: into {{PAGENAME}}. The subst: bit must simply be enclosed with <includeonly> tags. This will work fine as long as the template itself is always substituted, and, by their nature, they always are anyway. See Help:Substitution#Includeonly. I've made the change to Sandbox08...if you'd like, I can apply it to all of the {{PAGENAME}} commands in the sandboxes with AWB (I won't use the bot...I'll check each edit myself). Thanks, Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All the other substitution tasks requiring sandboxes (sandboxes #4, #6, #29) have been completed. I'll blank those sandboxes, but will double-check for completion first (translation: "I'll skip to Zambia and look").  :) Thank you for the heads up. The Transhumanist 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they're done. I've blanked those sandboxes. The Transhumanist 04:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Understood. First pass  Done. Second pass: Doing... Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Second pass  Done Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Cyprus[edit]

Hi there. An editor asked me to stop doing one of the changes you asked me to make. Can you please see this discussion? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Zlerman's on the team - he's working on 4 specific country outlines:
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline/Drafts/Topic outline of Azerbaijan
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline/Drafts/Topic outline of Tajikistan
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline/Drafts/Topic outline of Turkmenistan
  4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline/Drafts/Topic outline of Uzbekistan
And he's also our team's watchdog and points out problems as he spots them. He's very good at that.
This could be one huge problem he's spotted this time.  :(
I mean really huge. I've replied at that same discussion. It might even make the papers (if it hasn't already).
Skip Demographics of Cyprus, but keep going on the other Demographics of pages.
We should complete the standardization of the format of the CIA stats across Wikipedia, in case it is decided to keep it, but also because it will make it easier to find and remove if it is decided to delete it.
Keep in mind that the section heading we're placing is temporary. It became that way after we started adding "unless otherwise indicated" to the section lead. But don't worry. Once the placement of the standard heading is completed, it will be an easy matter to change it on all the pages.
Having fun yet?  :)
The Transhumanist 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Don't Panic

Demographics of Cyprus[edit]

I do not know if your comment on Talk:Demographics of Cyprus was prompted by my reversal of NuclearWarfare's automatic changes, but the claim of WhiteMagick is beside the point for the issue in hand. Please look at the data that we have in Demographics of Cyprus#Demographic statistics (from unknown sources!) and compare them to CIA World Factook:Cyprus. Huge blocks of the data in the article are totally different, and we do not know where they come from. One thing is clear: they are not from the CIA World Factbook, so the automatic change is not appropriate in this case. Please wait until the whole issue of Cypriot demographics is settled: if you want the full flavor of the debate, go to Talk:Cyprus. --Zlerman (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • And please note that WhiteMagick's claim is unverified, so I would not make too much out of it. I am pretty sure that the CIA World Factook does not take its data from Wikipedia... --Zlerman (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As I already pointed out the him/her the CIA book is using data (2001) it states as being obtained before the dates of the creation of the article (Feb 2002), and that if the editor wishes to use them they would be unable to as that would be OR.
It is true that the CIA book used data in 2000 that was updated in 2001, as shown by the CIA factbook 2000 extract on the first edit of the Cyprus page subsequently changed in Feb 2002, but that data is probably (almost definitely) from the census done in 2001--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You are saying that it is OR if the editor wishes to use what? The Transhumanist 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That if the editor was using his/her own figures (purportedly used by CIA) then that would be OR to use them in the article.--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt he conducted his own census, so by "his own figures" I assumed he meant statistics he gathered from various sources. And that's not original research. Though without the sources cited, it makes "his" stats rather difficult to verify. The Transhumanist 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article of, Population of redlinks[edit]

1) What is your ultimate strategy for dealing with "Area of" and "Population of" items in outlines? They all appear as red links in the drafts. 2) In preparing "my" countries for a move from draft to article space, can I use Topic outline of Russia as a good example? Or would you prefer that I use a different country outline? --Zlerman (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. All redlinks will eventually be bluelinked, mostly via redirect. The redirect should lead to whatever article section presents the link-indicated information in its prose. For population, it's often Demographics of x#Population. For area, it might be Geography of x#Area. To see the status of these two redlinks for all the countries in the set, see User:The Transhumanist/Population of present-day nations and states and User:The Transhumanist/Area of present-day nations and states - we use WP:LINKY on lists like these to tackle all the redlinks of a particular type at one time. While creating the redirects we also have the opportunity to standardize the section names that they lead to, if desired.
  2. The subject of country outline development is somewhat involved, so I'll cover that below, in the next section...
The Transhumanist 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Country outline development[edit]

There are two issues here:

  1. What needs to be done before a country outline should be moved to article space
  2. Completing a country outline

Preparing a country outline to be moved to article space[edit]

Country outlines should be moved to article space before they are completed.

That way, more editors will notice them and help complete them.

However, there are certain things that should be finished before moving them, and these are covered in the subsections below.

Lead section[edit]

The lead section should be condensed down to a single paragraph including just enough for good solid country identification. Unfortunately, we haven't developed a standard for this yet (perhaps general location, main distinguishing characteristics, and something the country is famous for) - more thought is needed on this. It was never intended to leave the full article leads in these outlines. We simply copied and pasted the leads from the articles to provide an easy starting point for editing. Some of the leads are monstrous - these pages are supposed to be outlines, not articles or article forks. I'll get back to you on this. Though any topics in the lead that are essential to the country as a subject should be converted to outline entries and included in the body of the outline (if they are not already there).

The country outlines placed in article space so far were done rather hastily in order to provide feedback (to see if the community wouldn't just want to burn these with fire, but also to generate comments, and to see how editors developed them further - for ideas on how to improve and expand the standard format), to get readers used to their presence, and to attract editors to this project.

In our haste, and since, we never got around to condensing the leads.

By the way, an editor, on his own initiative, condensed the lead in Topic outline of Indonesia down to the bare bare minimum. I guess he wasn't aware that outlines are still lists, and it is normal for lists to have a lead paragraph more than a single sentence long (see WP:LISTS#Lead section or paragraph). Oh well.

Administrative divisions[edit]

The administrative divisions sections for many countries are incorrect on the drafts, and the sections are empty. These need to be corrected and filled.

If there are way too many divisions to list, provide a link instead. Provide a map if you can find one (for each admin div section).

Government branches sections[edit]

These too start out in error for many countries. They must be corrected before the outline can be moved to article space.

Once the above 3 things (lead, administrative divisions, and government branch sections) are completed, it's time to move the outline to the main namespace. There, you can go about finishing up the outline (see the next section)...

Completing a country outline[edit]

There is some awkward stuff in the incomplete outlines:

  • redlinks
  • empty brackets
  • apparently irrelevant entries (e.g., "fjords" for a landlocked country)
  • blank entries

When encountered in article space, many editors tend to delete the awkward stuff instead of complete it. You need to be on the look out for this. One way to check for this is to compare the outline against the template:Outline country. That will show you what standard items have been removed.

That aside, here's the basic order that I generally complete an outline in:


Each country outline should include:

  1. Location map
  2. General map (with roads, rivers, cities, etc.) - usually placed next to or below the table of contents
  3. Satellite photo or topological map - usually placed in the Geography section
  4. Map(s) showing administrative divisions - one for each administrative division section, if available
  5. Population density map (or some other demographics-related map) - in the demographics section
  6. Etc.

Look for these at Wikimedia Commons. A faster way to get to what you need is to click on the atlas link in the country outline.  ;)

Sometimes the selection to choose from is pitiful. Do the best with what you have to work with.

The best examples of map support so far are Topic outline of the Isle of Man and Topic outline of Japan.


All blank entries and empty link brackets need to be filled in.

Bluelink the redlinks[edit]

Generally, either move a page to the name of the redlink, or click on the redlink and create a redirect to the article and section where the information is.

Entries that don't seem like they belong, we still keep for comparison purposes. These outlines serve as profiles, and the standard entries and the standard order they are in let you compare country profiles easily. So rather than remove "Glaciers" for countries that have none, instead add a colon and type in "none". This also helps remove ambiguity. If the glacier item is missing, the reader may not know whether it means that there are no glaciers, or if the outline just isn't complete yet. We're trying to make these outlines as unambiguous as possible.

Finish the coverage[edit]

These outlines were created using a template that had all the links most likely to be found for most of the countries of the world. But countries are highly individualized, and there are lots of non-standard topics on Wikipedia about them. We need to find them for each country. Here are some searching tips:

Be careful not to go beyond the essential topics[edit]

These outlines are not indexes, and they shouldn't include every article related to the country. We have alphabetical indexes and specialized lists for that. For example, in the outline of the United States, don't include the name of every municipality in the country, because there are thousands of them. That's too much data!

But small countries might only have a handful of cities, towns, and villages. Sure, add them in.


Use Google to search Wikipedia (yes you can use Google to search specific websites - Google is actually much more useful for searching Wikipedia than Wikipedia's own search box is.)

Basically, in Google you type in "of x" (including the quotes!). (Where "x" is a country name). Then click on Advanced search, and configure it to "title only" and add Wikipedia's URL to the domain field. As you get up to speed with this technique, you'll probably start editing the url directly in the url field at the top of your browser, but you could skip to an advanced method and make an url list of google searches on a user page and load them with Linky (this technique speeds up multi-Google searches immensely).

In the results, you'll recognize a lot of the article names on there (guess how I found the article names for the country outlines in the first place!) Look over the results, keeping an eye out for article names that are not already included in the country outline you are working on.

(Using "-subject", where "subject" is the name of a subject, you can eliminate a lot of the standard subjects already in use, to make it easier to spot new ones in your results).

Then repeat for "in x", and look them over as above.

Other search terms that may be useful include the country's name (without "of" or "in"), the country's adjectival(s) (e.g. "German", "Germanic"), the country's demonym(s), etc.

Check the country's categories[edit]

You can usually find blatantly missing topics in Wikipedia's category system.

Browse the subject's articles on Wikipedia[edit]

By this point the outline itself is already a powerful research tool. Click on its links to find more links for the outline. For example, History of Russia is a great place to look for links for the history section. And don't forget to read the main article on the country!


Images are best saved for last, because once you've added all the links and maps to the outline, then you know how much room you need to fill with images. But it's OK to add them sooner or as you go - pictures are worth a thousand words and they liven up the page. Just keep in mind that as more links are added, so is more space which needs to be filled with images.

For images, the standard size we've been using is 300px. If the image can't be seen at that size, make it bigger. Placement is usually to the right, but large images usually work best centered at the top or bottom of a section. Be creative, but make it look good.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Try to find pictures that are not already in use in the main country-related articles. You can usually find some at Commons, and in more-specific articles (like place articles, or animal type, etc.). Go a few clicks deep.  ;)

The best examples of image placement are Topic outline of France, Topic outline of Iceland, Topic outline of Japan, Topic outline of Taiwan, and Topic outline of Thailand.

That's all I can think of for now[edit]

I hope you find the above suggestions useful.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these detailed and extremely useful guidelines. I will start by applying them to one of "my" countries later today. We will see what happens. --Zlerman (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Endonyms, demonyms[edit]

Please check my treatment of endonyms and demonyms in Draft Outlines for Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and tell me if this is how it should be done. --Zlerman (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They look good. Though I'm not sure we should include multiple terms in link pipes. The Transhumanist 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Here's a fun one: Link lists bot task[edit]


The task is now complete! :)

The Helpful One 18:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And to think I almost created these by hand.
Thank you!
The Transhumanist 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Search/replaces for "Demographics of" articles[edit]

Hmm, these appear to be done already. JCbot (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: A simple search/replace on "Demographics of" articles[edit]

All completed. In addition, I'd be willing to help in whatever sort of project you're participating in, when able. VX!talk 00:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


...with the moves/deletions. Still trying to work out the problems with AWB. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. All proposals to move content from SOME NATIONALITY (disambiguation) to SOME NATIONALITY are controversial, because they affect and potentially break links from all the existing pages that refer to that nationality. If you want to request any such moves in the future, please follow the procedures on WP:RM and, as a courtesy, please post an informative note on WT:WikiProject Disambiguation. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, before you create new disambiguation pages, I encourage you to consider carefully the criteria discussed at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the nation should always be the primary topic. For example, for Moldovan, it clearly isn't; but in many other cases, it arguably could be. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For most of the pages, they don't break the links, since most of them redirect to the country article - changing the redirect into a disambiguation page is in these cases is an improvement to such links. A link to the nationality itself should lead to an article about that nation's people (say Germans). The adjectival, which can mean several things, should lead to the page about the adjectival, which in the case of country adjectivals, is the disambiguation page. The Transhumanist 05:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi. A long while ago (May 2008) I became interested in the topic outline wikiproject. At the time, I decided to write a topic outline for medicine. However, I kind of decided to give up, as I didn't see much action on the project and thought my contributions would never be moved to the mainspace. The page remains where it was, and now I've noticed on the community portal that the project was recently mentioned. Though I know that the outline can still be expanded greatly, I feel that it would benefit more from the contributions of many editors if it were actually in the main article space. Is there potential for this? How can I help turn this outline into a useful tool? Thanks in advance, 4dhayman (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to meet you, and thank you for getting involved with the project, which by the way has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, as each individual outline is part of a greater whole. See the top page at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge.
For the past year, the outline team has been focused on the Geography branch of the Outline of knowledge. We've been busy building an outline for each country of the world, and since there are over 200 of them, this has been taking up most of our time. The reasons this approach was taken were 1) it was hoped that a large body of content would attract more readers/editors, and 2) country coverage is fairly standardized which makes the lot easier (faster) to build. Once we've moved the country outlines to article space (in a few more months), we'll shift back to building the rest of the collection. Or we may focus on another branch, say either "Technology and applied sciences" or "Health and fitness".
Keep in mind that the only reason the (non-country) topic outline drafts were started in the Wikipedia namespace and not article space, and I mean the only reason, was that because they started out as empty skeletons (headings only) they ran the risk of being speedy deleted from article space. Once an outline has enough meat on it that it can't be considered "empty" or "too empty", it can and should be moved to the main namespace ("article space"). I've moved the outline you mentioned to the main namespace. I've also changed its name slightly, as the whole project is undergoing a namechange (as mentioned at the beginning of this message).
I find that I can build an outline (without images) for almost any subject in 3 to 8 hours. The most difficult one I've worked on so far took me 3 days. So if your only concern is a single outline, there's no reason why you could not just take it upon yourself to develop it. I've developed hundreds of these pages. And if I can do it, so can just about anybody else.
Keep up the good work, and I hope you adopt some more outlines to work on. The Outline of knowledge really needs you!
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to contact me personally...[edit]

...please email me.

My internet access is limited - this terminal I'm on right now doesn't support email - but I will get to one that does and will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline of X[edit]

If you are moving all of the articles entitled Topic outline of X to Outline of X, why did you bother to move many articles entitled List of X-related topics to List of X-related articles? There may be a few conflicts with other articles entitled Outline of X that are not related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. I'm concerned that we may be seriously overreaching (but then you are a transhumanist, aren't you). --Buaidh (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "x-related articles" pages are alphabetical indexes. The "x-related topics" pages are a set of lists with a shared format all their own. Separating the two sets just seemed logical, so that the index set can be completed.
I've looked over the outline field and I'm pretty sure there won't be any direct title conflicts. But even if there are a few, they'll be easy to deal with.
Besides, "topic outline" isn't holding up very well as a title because outlines on Wikipedia are continuously evolving toward a hybrid form of outline. A "topic outline" is an outline composed of the topics of the outline's subject, as opposed to being composed of sentences - which is called a "sentence outline". Most of our outlines have elements of both, and other elements as well, so they can't accurately be referred to as either "topic outlines" or "sentence outlines". That makes the more general term "outline" a much better fit.
The Transhumanist 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the final title change for a while, or are others in the works. --Buaidh (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For outline pages, "Outline of" is the final destination as far as I am concerned. As for other page types, there are no more renames of sets in the works at the moment, as far as I know. But it's inevitable, don't you think?  :)
The Transhumanist 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline of animal science[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of animal science[edit]

This outline needs to be completed soon, because there is a redlink for it at the disambiguation page Outline of anatomy.

Would you take a look at the subject and see what you can casually fill-in?

I'd sure appreciate it.

I'm kind of preoccupied with renaming outline pages.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'd really like to thank you for answering and giving me a suggestion for what I can help out with. I'll take a look at it. However, part of the reason I'm really happy to see the outline of medicine in article space, is that, unfortunately, I can't predict when I'll have time to edit wikipedia in the future. My edit history is very sporadic, and I can't promise long-term involvement in this project.
Thanks again! 4dhayman (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Short-term is hard. Long-term is easy. Just do what you can when you can. Think of this project often.  :) The Transhumanist 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Outlines for countries[edit]

It looks you are the Chief Outliner. A question: I see the [Category:Outlines->Outlines of countries->Lists of topics by region] branch and also Category:Lists of topics by country. Until now they were not interlinked, but overlapped/interleaved. I put the latter one into "Lists of topics by region", but I am not sure is is correct idea, since Category:Lists of topics by region looks like 100% USA. May be it be more sense to rename the current "By region" into "By region of the USA" and move it into Category:Outlines of countries. Since I guess you have some structure in mind, I am leaving the solution to you. - 7-bubёn >t 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much stayed away from the category system. But I'll take a look. The Transhumanist 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Archive[edit]

I'm currently waiting for Thehelpfulone to arrive on IRC, as I have a few crucial questions regarding the bot and AWB. The thread in question was dormant for three days, so the bot archived it. I'll go add it back in. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic outlines and hatnotes[edit]

I've noticed you do a lot of work on topic outlines, specifically for countries. One of things I like to do is tidy up hatnotes and "see also" sections. For me, the outlines of countries and the lists of related articles are great links to put in see also sections to avoid the massive clutter of links that result there otherwise. I've noticed you have linked topic outlines in hatnotes, but I don't think this is an appropriate place for them. Hatnotes are purely for navigation if you got to the wrong article, they should be as short and as concise as possible, outlines seem better linked in a see also section to me. So my question is if you had any problem with my interpretation of the layout? The current hatnotes and see also sections on articles like United States and United Kingdom would be my preferred layout. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Move request[edit]

No problem, done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you didn't fill my request - you did something else. The Transhumanist 19:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Outlines of countries (a suggestion)[edit]

This category does not look very reader-friendly. Please consider splitting off a subcategory with draft outlines. In this way, the category screen, showing only the article space outlines, will become uncluttered, while the drafts will be on a lower level. They will be moved "up" as they are released to article space. --Zlerman (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No need. We'll be moving all those outlines to article space starting immediately. It's time to shake things up and shift this project into hyperdrive. The Transhumanist 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. I also wonder if starting the outlines project with countries is the most helpful thing -- since country pages are already quite well outlined (you're moving from a level-3 outline to a level-2 outline, perhaps; but most topic articles are only a level-5 outline of the subject, where the benefits of a higher-order outline are more immediately obvious). I know you've been doing this for many moons, so are not about to change, but I'd like to see more effort go into pages like the outlines of science... +sj + 23:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow what you were saying about levels - were you referring to heading levels? The outline's hierarchy goes down into the list itself - each level of bullets in the list counts too.
About shifting focus, we've been working on the country outlines for a year! I think it would be best to finish these up before moving on to the rest of the outline collection. I plan to focus on Health and fitness next, but right now it's time to roll up our shirt sleeves and get these done! The Transhumanist 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK -- glad to see the push to finish the project underway! Here's what I mean about levels : every encyclopedia article is, at some level, an outline of its subject. Not too vague, not too detailed, lots of good links. wikipedia's are already more heavily interlinked than most. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a high-level abstract outline with mostly links to more detailed pages, and 10 being a detailed 'outline' of what's known about a very specific topic with mostly text and a few links to less detailed articles, most Good Articles are level 5/6 outlines with a dozen related links. The average country article, say Nigeria, is more more like a level 3 outline, with 50 links to related topics and a specific "detailed article" for each section.

This project seems to aim to produce level 1/2/3 outlines. No-one has tackled a level 1 outline for an abstract field yet, which would be a useful example, so you've basically started with level 2 outlines for countries (many of which already are level 3 outlines) - it's not that easy to see the difference between an average country outline and the country page it supplements.

The project has also avoided the question of how much text to include in an outline, along with the links. I can imagine a level 1 outline with a good bit of text, though one would want to pack in many good links for each paragraph. (Think of an annotated timeline at multiple scales; a level 1 timeline for the History of Man, with a level 2 for a given Age.) Most current outlines have only section headings and subheadings, no complete sentences. In contrast, most articles have a lot of text; bare lists of links are discouraged. It might be helpful to have an example outline with good explanatory text for each section; and similarly an outline for a very specific topic (picked at random from geography, something like Welland Canal) +sj + 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross posting?[edit]

I think you have inadvertently put on my talk page something intended for another user. Here is this bit:

I agree with this. I also wonder if starting the outlines project with countries is the most helpful thing -- since country pages are already quite well outlined (you're moving from a level-3 outline to a level-2 outline, perhaps; but most topic articles are only a level-5 outline of the subject, where the benefits of a higher-order outline are more immediately obvious). I know you've been doing this for many moons, so are not about to change, but I'd like to see more effort go into pages like the outlines of science... +sj + + 23:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow what you were saying about levels - were you referring to heading levels? The outline's hierarchy goes down into the list itself - each level of bullets in the list counts too.
About shifting focus, we've been working on the country outlines for a year! I think it would be best to finish these up before moving on to the rest of the outline collection. I plan to focus on Health and fitness next, but right now it's time to roll up our shirt sleeves and get these done! The Transhumanist 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

--Zlerman (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He jumped in, so I included his message in my CCs of the thread. Totally intentional. It was in part due to his response that I went full speed ahead. The Transhumanist 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy sources[edit]

Sorry about ignoring this project for a while. I've been dabbling through, but I haven't really focused on it well enough. I just wanted to know of a few easy sources to grab some of the material for the government outline pages. That would make going through it much easier, I bet. Thanks for your help. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The easiest source is the Politics of link at the top of the government section of each outline. That page has a subheading for each country's government's branches. You will find most of the links you need there.
Copy the following link to the top of your talk page for easy access to that section for each outline: User:The Transhumanist/List of country outline government sections.
The Transhumanist 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the update, I personally don't think were ready to go live yet, I'm working on the currencies but I'm afraid I've been a bit slow but my mock exams are over for now so it should only take another week or two, talk to you then...

Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. We're live, but not hooked in. That is, most of the outlines are orphans (not linked to from any articles). Nor have I added them to the main outline page (Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge) yet.  :) A few more people will notice them (in the alphabetical index in the Special menu and in search results), but I think we can handle the slight increase in traffic that will create. Hopefully, they'll help us edit these pages! The Transhumanist 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update[edit]

Thanks for the update. I'll be able to help with some of that, but I don't think I'll have time to do the government branches until I get on a calmer schedule. In the meantime, I'll search for somebody who's familiar with government-related topics and has some time to help us. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Time is relative - whatever time you could donate would be very helpful. Besides, it is very easy editing (the info is already on Wikipedia, mostly in the "Politics of" articles, and completing the outline sections is mostly a matter of copying and pasting links from there). If you start out at just one outline per day, you'll find you'll quickly pick up speed. Something you'll notice is that many countries' governments are structured identically, and so the task becomes very familiar very fast. It's quite repetitive (easy). Jump on in, the water's fine.  :) The Transhumanist 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. :-)[edit]

Hello. You know, I really didn't see your question about how I've been, because you asked it in the summary of the message you posted a little while ago. However, I'm doing fine, thanks. And you?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew you'd spot that.  :)
I'm doing OK.
Though I've bitten off almost more than I can chew with the set of country outlines.
I'm really hoping you'll start to familiarize yourself with them, and chip in with some edits here and there.
Every little bit helps.
I look forward to seeing what you can spot and fix.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with the country outlines.--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Outline "template"[edit]

In the General section of country outlines, User:Buaidh is changing the plural form "name(s)" to singular "name". I reverted this change for Outline of Armenia and Outline of Azerbaijan, but I see that many more country outlines are involved, and we now probably have a massive inconsistency across the countries. Please decide what form should be used. --Zlerman (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that "name(s)" is a temporary placeholder until we determine whether there is one "name" or multiple "names". For example, there may be one or more common English language country names, but there is usually only one official English language name. Please let me know if this is not the case. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't a temporary placeholder, but on retrospect, semantic accuracy (Buaidh's approach) is best. "Name(s)" is rather awkward and unprofessional-looking - so we should treat it as a temporary place-holder until these are filled in. Good idea, Buaidh!
As long as there is a string of characters (at the the beginning of the entry) that is the same on all the outlines (but unique among the standard entries), we can use that as a target point from which to further develop the outlines (in automated batch tasks).
Keep up the good work.
The Transhumanist 01:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Script for Renaming Pages[edit]

Hi there,

Please see my reply on that page!

The Helpful One 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Official endonym[edit]

Do we really need an official endonym in addition to the official English country name for English speaking nations? They should always be the same. --Buaidh (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Combine the two entries? (Like "Head of state and government")
The Transhumanist 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we plan to display the endonym for non-English speaking countries as the foreign language endonym (e.g. for China, 中国); or the English language translation of the foreign language endonym (e.g., Middle Kingdom); or both (e.g., 中国 (Mandarin Chinese language: Middle Kingdom)?

With the current entry that's on the outline, let's go with the English language translation of the foreign language endonym. But If you'd like to add the foreign language endonym as an additional entry, feel welcome to. The Transhumanist 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Finished! I've updated atlas again, see my page. I'm terribly sorry for taking longer than I said I would and it shouldn't happen again, so go ahead and ask me if you'd like me to make anything else for your campaign; I'd be glad to. Again, I'd like to thank you for helping Wikipedia in its weak spots. Poor connection between other articles is something I've noticed from my start of Wikipedia, and I'm extremely pleased to watch the beginning of this problem become action! not to mention being a little part of it.

As for automated editing scripts, if you know PHP (or know how to observe), you can enter it in from the URL bar and make an edit similar to ?&action=edit, actually just an extension to that. For an example, you can see User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate and hover your mouse over one of the links on the status box. I don't know if this is of any use to you but I'm just throwing it out there. As for traffic counters, if you've read the Signpost, a new one is on its way. Here's the article.-- penubag  (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there-- penubag  (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Again. -- penubag  (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And again.

Question copied from Juliancolton's page[edit]

I have a question for you. What exactly is the point of these articles? The titles are terrible ("outline of..."??), they're largely mirrors of the main country articles and/or "List of X topics" articles or templates, and they're basically just portals in another form. Why not just, oh I dunno, work on the portals? //roux   00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They're hierarchical outlines, usually just referred to as "outlines". They are a type of list. These particular ones lack the numbering system common to most hierarchical outlines, because the MediaWiki software does not yet support outline formatting and presentation, but the hierarchical structure is still there. It's a hybrid form (without numbering).
Are you familiar with hierarchical outlines?
Outlines on Wikipedia are all part of a larger whole called the "Outline of knowledge".
The scope of this project is similar to a much more famous outline of knowledge called the Propaedia.
The Transhumanist 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what they are, what I don't understand is what they're for. Nobody's going to search for Outline of Albania; it's simply not logical. What do these outlines do that isn't covered by Portals or can be subsumed into them? For the most part, they just seem to be weird syntheses of List of X Topics articles and templates and the main articles for each country. //roux   04:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. pls reply here, I have it watchlisted. //roux   04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be logged out automatically in about 12 minutes, so I'll give you the short version...
Hierarchical classification systems are an alternative to search engines, yet they are synergistic with them. It's the whole "searching vs. browsing" debate. Search engines run into the problem of synonym invisibility, topic ignorance, etc. Outlines get around those problems and help you find information even when you don't know what you need to find is called, or even if you don't know exactly what you are looking for.
Portals would be a poor place for these lists because of the subpage problem. And portals aren't included in searches by default. When activated in searches in personal options, portal page paths make the search results almost unreadable.
And once you know about a useful page set like this, you may very well search for "Outline of whatever", because these are one of the most useful presentation formats of information on Wikipedia. And they are improving all the time. But you don't have to search for them, because they will show up in your search results anyways just by searching for the base subject. Neat, huh?
They are differentiated from "Lists of x topics" since that set is evolving rapidly toward an alphabetical index structure.
Any other questions?
The Transhumanist 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. You still haven't answered the question, or pointed out how they're even remotely useful to the casual reader who won't even know that they exist. Most people use Google for searching and then come to Wikipedia. They don't, generally, looks for overarching topic outlines; they'll look for the specific thing they're hunting and branch out from there. I really fail to see any utility to these pages whatsoever, especially since the only differentiation from Lists of articles is that the lists are alphabetical. //roux   05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever read an article about something you wanted to know more about only to later find an article that had more info on the exact same topic? This has happened to me too many times but with these new outlines and with proper dab notes, readers will be able to find and read more articles on exactly what they're searching for. The See main article: under a heading doesn't always cut it. On stubs and poorly developed articles, topic outlines may be the only place to direct and get specific information. Hopefully more ways can be devised to better connect our articles or integrate them into each other in a better way. -- penubag  (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux, what question have I not answered? (You asked several).
Outlines are a type of list. How they are useful to the casual reader is summed up pretty well by Wikipedia's Contents page, which is accessible from every page on Wikipedia on the main menu on the sidebar on the left side of the screen:
There are two ways to look things up in Wikipedia: by searching or by browsing.
If you know the name of an article for which you are looking, simply type it into Wikipedia's search box and press Go, or you can search for information on a topic by typing it in the box and selecting Search.
If you would like to look around the encyclopedia to see what is on it, use Wikipedia's Contents pages. Lists and indices are examples of contents for a published work, and Wikipedia has many of each, including a complete alphabetical index and indices by category.

Outlines differ from Wikipedia's alphabetical indexes in format and in scope. The indexes are comprehensive in scope and are intended to include all of the topics on a subject. Outlines by definition should include only essential links, and because of this they don't get watered down by several hundred types of cuisine or 10,000 person or place names - links to lists of these suffice for that, which makes the structure easier to navigate. But it's the difference in format in which outlines really shine. They are toxonomies of knowledge, and as such they show the relationships between the information conveyed. The links are presented in context. This is especially true of the outlines on countries, into which we've put the most work. The rest of the branches of the knowledge tree will be further developed in this way as we get to them.
For example, the article index for Japan has grown to be 23 pages long:
Alphabetical index: 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
But if you want to see at a glance the structure of Japan as a subject, you might find the Outline of Japan more useful.
Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge is intended to provide a road map of the knowledge of humankind. It's a navigational structure that doubles as a table of contents of Wikipedia. And so its utility differs from Wikipedia's alphabetical indexes in the same way that a book's table of contents differs from the same book's index.
To help the casual reader find these pages, links to them have been added to the see also sections of the corresponding subjects. A lot of the recently drafted pages are still orphans, but we'll be integrating them into the encyclopedia soon.
I hope you've found the above explanation enlightening and useful.  :)
The Transhumanist 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really, no. These pages do nothing that well-maintained portals don't already. If the argument is that portals aren't maintained and/or people don't always look, the solution is to maintain them and make them more prominent, not to spend insane amounts of time duplicating enormous numbers of articles. //roux   22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Outlines have very little in common with portals, except that portals may duplicate portions of them. As with all lists, outlines are part of the encyclopedia itself, while portals merely duplicate portions of the encyclopedia (including lists).
Portals contain prose, which is the antithesis of an outline. Outlines are easier to use because of their format - they are specifically devoid of paragraphs. It's their format (and organizational layout) which defines them. It's easier to find and click on links in an outline than it is for links buried in paragraphs. We're not duplicating articles, we're constructing lists that are part of Wikipedia's contents system - you could say we are deconstructing knowledge and presenting its skeleton. We're toxonomists.  :)
Outlines have a number of other advantages over portals...
Outlines are specialized in presentation: they focus on one presentation type, while portals are more general and have multiple types of formatting that a reader must wade through.
Outlines are specialized in function: they serve specifically as site maps or tables of contents, and they do not impede or water down their hierarchically classified content with article excerpts or essay-style content, nor with information intended for editors.
Outlines on Wikipedia are actually components or branches of the same overall outline - part of an integrated focused navigation system. Meanwhile each portal is an odd, almost random assortment of article excerpts (the cutting and pasting of which is sheer duplication).
Outlines are streamlined - each outline page is self-contained and you can access an outline in a single click. In contrast, a growing number of portals are multi-page affairs requiring extra clicks to access their contents. And being self-contained, outlines emphasize scrolling, which is more convenient for browsing than clicking.
Outline formats are standardized, making outlines very useful for comparing similar subjects (such as comparing countries).
Outlines show up in Wikipedia's search results by default (because they're in the main namespace).
Outlines are easier to maintain, and easier to expand.
And outlines don't go stale like portals do. Portals, which present article excerpts, need to be continuously updated with new excerpts. Outlines are more like tables of content, not reader's digests, and therefore they retain their relevance. Once you've read a portal, the need to access it again is greatly reduced - who needs to read the same article excerpts more than once?
Outlines don't have graphical layout elements to worry about - outlines are sheer content. Lists on portals are harder to build, and harder to read.
Outlines are usually much more extensive than lists on portals. I've tried building lists on portals - there's a general sentiment amongst portal maintainers to keep them trimmed, which makes the scope of lists on portals far different than that of outlines. It probably has something to do with the reader's digest role of portals.
Outlines are easier to build. Because of this, their number is growing fast. They'll outnumber portals in the near future.
You may not find outlines useful, but many people do. If you can't grasp the utility of an outline over a non-outline page, then there's nothing I can do for you. Sorry. Maybe you should stick to portals.
The Transhumanist 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your condescension is sickening. There is obviously no point in attempting to have an adult conversation with you. //roux   01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't take what you dish out, eh? Like the way you phrased questions, like "What exactly is the point...?" and "Why not just, oh I dunno...?" And the way you emphasized criticisms as if weilding a sledgehammer, like "remotely useful" and "I really fail to see any utility to these pages whatsoever", and "sickening" and "There is obviously no point in attempting to have an adult conversation with you". But those pale in comparison to the way you indirectly referred to outliners as weird and insane. You are obviously more practiced at condescension than I am. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I'll treat you like an adult when you start acting like one. The Transhumanist 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough, please[edit]

Hi there. I have both of your pages watchlisted, so I caught this back and forth. While you both have legitimate issues you want to express, right now, it doesn't look like it will go anywhere soon, and I request that both of you please stop so that this doesn't denigrate into anything worse. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you for nuking it in the bud.  :) The Transhumanist 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some old pages[edit]

Hi. I was looking at some old pages (look like maybe a proposal) that you created. I'm trying to determine if there is any reason to keep the pages. The reason I noticed them was because they transclude the current date page (e.g. March 15) and end up showing up in the Category:Days of the year. The pages are Template:Lotd scroll, Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (TFL), and Wikipedia:Today's featured list proposal. I was going to send them to WP:MfD but I wanted to ask first. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be deleted. Proposals are archived, kept for reference and historical reasons. The template and the Main page alternative are live, part of the collection at WP:MPA. There was an error in the template, but I've fixed it, so all 3 pages display correctly now. Thank you for pointing this out to me. The Transhumanist 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Geography WikiProject update[edit]

Hi there,

Well I'm not sure what we could use the images for - awards maybe, but is the Geography WikiProject active, is that what I've been helping out in? I thought this was the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic outline" project - not the Geography one? If it's for this WikiProject - then perhaps everyone who has been helping so hard should get a special one, customised with their name and a personal comment once the outlines are complete?

The Helpful One 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Our team is actually a joint collaboration between the Geography and Outline of knowledge WikiProjects. The country outlines we've been building fall under the scope of both of those.
Excellent idea about rewarding our dedicated contributors. That sounds like the perfect use for the World Developer medallions. I'll get to work on something special to showcase those.
Thank you!
The Transhumanist 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Awards and outlines[edit]

Hi. First of all, I think the awards look excellent. Are there copyright issues with integrating the characters from the Wikipedia logo onto the trophy, however, or did we decide it looks better that way? I'd like some information on the activities available, as I have time over the next week or so. Also, as for the topic outlines, I did some more editing, especially in the governmental area of Canada (as you requested) and the lists of earthquakes in some countries. I found Special:Allpages to be especially useful for some of this. One thing I noticed, however, is how many topic outlines are still missing their time zones. This shouldn't be too difficult to integrate, so I'll take some time to add those if they are still not completed. Do we use numbers (ie. UTC -5) or names (ie. Eastern Standard Time)? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the images belong to Wikipedia.
The globe in the trophy looks better without the letters: the letters look cheesy unless they're engraved into the globe like the edges of the puzzle pieces, which is something we couldn't figure out how to do.
Someone started filling the time zone entries with numbers, but the problem with that is that the numbers differ based on what season it is (standard vs daylight savings). And the articles on them include the time zone names, not their numbers. I think we should use the names, with the standard time-zone numbers following them in parentheses.
Other activities...


Finding and placing images (maps and pictures). Pictures make these outlines look gooooood. The outlines that have the best image support so far are: Outline of Thailand, Outline of Iceland, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Taiwan, Outline of France, and Outline of Japan.

The standard size we use for pics on the right of the page is 300px. Though that doesn't always work well - whatever size you use, make it look good. And remember, give each image a caption (description).

The best place to start is by picking a country you've always wanted to go to, and then go to Wikimedia Commons and see what they have on the country there. You'll find that they usually have a bigger selection of pictures to choose from than the pictures used in Wikipedia articles.

It's boring to use the same pictures from the Wikipedia article on the country. Try to make the outline look different, and better.  :)

Remember, each picture should match the subject of the section they are in. Generally.

By the way, you can get pictures of any person, place, or thing in the country. There are lots of terms other than the country's name that you can type in to the Wikimedia Commons search bar. If you get stuck, you can use the outline itself to "travel" around the country and look around to see what's on Wikipedia.


As for maps, each outline generally gets a location map at the top. Those were the easiest to place, because they had standard names that could usually be inserted automatically by the country outline creation template. I'm pretty sure all the country outlines have location maps.

Then there's a general map (showing borders, roads, major cities, etc.). The geography section gets either a satellite photo of the country or a topographic map, or both. The administrative division sections get maps showing the subdivisions of the country. Most of the countries haven't had these maps placed yet.

The country outlines that have at least some map support (in addition to the location map), include: IndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIsraelJapanMacauRussiaTaiwanThailandAlbaniaAustriaFranceGermanyIcelandIrelandItalyIsle of ManRomaniaRussiaUnited KingdomVatican CityBahamasBermudaBritish Virgin IslandsCanadaUnited StatesBelizeHondurasMexicoAustraliaArgentinaBoliviaChileEcuadorFalkland Islands

The atlas link on each outline will take you to the commons map collection. Once there, you can refine or broaden your search as needed.


There are other entries besides time zones that need to be filled in. Such as:

  • Pronunciation
  • Population
  • Size
  • Form of government
  • Head of state
  • Head of government
  • Commander in chief
  • Economic rank

Blue-linking via redirect[edit]

Most links have been standardized. When they are red, rather than change the link, we either rename the destination page to correspond with the link, or if the information is in a section on a page, we click on the link and create a redirect leading to the information.

This helps reduce chaos in country coverage by standardizing article names. These outlines have become the de facto guide for country article naming.

But, we only change article names to a standard if the standard is the most common name. Like "Geography of x". In cases of links sets for which there is no standard (because the common names differ), like "adjectival cuisine" (country adjectivals include German, Italian, Taiwanese, etc.), we standardize by providing redirects, and include the standard links in the alphabetical lists within the outlines (such as in the culture section - adjectivals wreak havoc with comparability, as Algerian cuisine would be at the beginning of the list and Zimbabwean cuisine would be at the end). To keep cuisine in the same place we use Cuisine of x, which leads to the corresponding "adjectival cuisine" article.

In the government branches sections we use the common names. Parliaments have various names, but it could be misleading to refer to a country's government bodies by non-official names.

User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country is a set of lists that show the status of (almost all of) the standard links on the country outlines. These lists are very useful as task lists, for creating redirects, and for checking redlink status.

Or pick a country...[edit]

Or you could pick a country, and finish its outline all the way.

Zlerman prefers this approach, and I posted instructions on how to go about this on his talk page at User talk:Zlerman#Country outline development.

How's that?[edit]

There should be enough activities to choose from above to get you started.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

The Transhumanist 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A little mix-up[edit]

Hello, I am just informing you that when you posted the comment "Geography WikiProject update - 03/15/2009" on several user's talk pages, a comment above that from User:IMatthew's talk page that I had posted ended up on several users' pages that it does not concern. It would help if you inform all the users you posted this comment to of this mistake.Dough4872 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doh! (no pun intended).  Done I think I got them all. Sorry 'bout that. The Transhumanist 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I lied about the pun.  :)

re: medals[edit]

Those look great! Kudos to Penubag. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they look good. Unfortunately, I did not do much work on any of the topic outlines apart from some article and redirect building at Topic outline of the United States. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- penubag  (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quiz time![edit]

Just wondering, what's your score? [1] -- penubag  (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My best so far is 62. Useight (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Constituent countries of the United Kingdom[edit]

I saw you comment at User talk:Buaidh#Further coverage of geography:

Other sets that are begging for creation include:
  • the constituent countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)

It has already created see Constituent countries of the United Kingdom --PBS (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. We'll be sure to add a link to it to on the outlines being discussed.
I got ahead of myself a little... We were talking about outline pages. None of the constituent countries have an outline page yet. For examples outlines, see: Outline of Japan and Outline of Alabama.
The Transhumanist 21:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Protected areas of ...[edit]

"Protected areas of Turkmenistan" has just been moved to "Protected areas in Turkmenistan" citing naming conventions as the reason. The change from "protected areas of ..." to "protected areas in ..." may have implications for all outlines of countries. Please consider. --Zlerman (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"In" is slightly more semantically accurate, so we should use that, but both links should work ("in" and "of"). If we use "in", "of" should have a redirect. The Transhumanist 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Compare User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country/Protected areas in x and User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country/Protected areas of x.

The Transhumanist 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, which is more appropriate: "States of the United States" or "States in the United States"?

Protected areas are usually a part of a country, rather than merely being in it. They are designated areas protected by law, therefore, they are different than say rivers or mountains which happen to be in the country. Protected areas also belong to the country, strengthening the term even further.

I'd go with "of" in this case, as it is more grammatically correct.

The Transhumanist 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

How do you configure a cool signature, such as the one you have? Thanks ahead of time...

Guszy 15:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guszy (talkcontribs)

See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature.
Then cut and paste a cool signature into your signature setting box, and edit it to make it unique, like change the colors, etc.
For color codes, see web colors.
The Transhumanist 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect generalization in Sea Level Article[edit]

I couldn't figure out where to post this - so seeing you are Mr Project Geography, I thought I would flag that:

Sea_level has a section at the end on aviation Flight Levels that contains sweeping generalizations and conflicts with Flight_level

I'm not qualified to fix it up - and if I comment in the "discussion" page, it will likely never get fixed - so I thought I would flag it with you and you can delgate it as appropriate.

If there is a better mechanism for doing this - please let me know.

Cheers - Doug. Dugo (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The best solution is to place {{Contradict-other}} at the top of the page that has the contradiction. Follow the instructions on the template's page. That will place a notice on the page. The template will also automatically add the page to Category:Articles contradicting other articles, where other Wikipedians may find it.
You can also post a message to the Geography WikiProject's talk page. Editors interested in Geography might see it there.
I hope this helps.
The Transhumanist 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuke power[edit]

There're a few things I could use your help on...

Of course, the government sections of the country outlines. We still need to keep picking away at these... or bulldoze through them!

And the other is checking each page listed at country outlines and making sure it is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge. I'm certain some of them haven't been added yet.

By the way, please look over the outlines I created for the U.S. States, and see if anything (problems, ideas) jump out at you. Then let me know.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Been a bit busy recently, but I scanned over a couple of outlines and I noted a few useful things we could add. Under "Cities in 'Insert US State'", we should probably add a section for "Largest city". "Naval militia" and "State Defense Forces" would probably be pretty useful for the "Military of Alabama" section. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: AWB Bot task[edit]

Hi there,

I did this task on my main account - as there were less than 10 pages that needed the find/replace!


The Helpful One 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was going to assign you the task to change the corresponding hatnote on all the other country outlines (to update the "list of" links to "index of"), but Buaidh has already beat us to it! But there are plenty more tasks to go around... The Transhumanist 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)