Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Outlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines

What type of thing is X

[edit]

Recently I've discovered this project and I've just wondered about sections named like this discussion header that could be more encyclopedic, and just preferable in general, to simply be called "What is X". Is there already a consensus for them to be called "What typeof thing is X" and if so what is the reasoning. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • What type of something a thing is, is what classifications it falls into. What are its parent topics? The simpler question "What is X?", is asking for a definition, which is presented in the lead section. I hope this clarification helps.    — The Transhumanist   05:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do outlines absolutely need to have references

[edit]

User:CanonLawJunkie/Outline of Catholic canon law was moved to draft over not having references, and there is a discussion about this choice at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I replied to the specific case on the linked talk page, but I also think it's worth having a more general discussion here. To answer the question in the heading, strictly speaking, even articles aren't absolutely required to have references. WP:V pretty much only requires citations for quotes, BLP stuff, and things that are challenged. Similarly, WP:N requires that sources demonstrating notability exist not that they are cited in the article. Obviously we aim for better, but nothing in our policies requires prose articles to have references so there's no reason our policies on outlines should be any more strict. Outlines are more similar to navigational aids like nav boxes and disambiguation pages than they are standalone lists, and we don't require citations for either of those since it should be obvious from the linked article that it's fit for inclusion. I don't think we should rule out the possibility of including references though. Some outlines may make controversial claims through inclusion or have disputes about whether something meets the inclusion criteria which could be resolved by adding an inline citation, but in general I don't see a need to for the same reason we don't include references on DAB pages or nav boxes. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Wugapodes said. However any unsupported claim can be challenged. The majority of content is likely to be links to Wikipedia articles, which do not need referemces. If the link exists it will be blue, a redirect is also acceptable, and sometimes a disambiguation link may be acceptable. Annotation is desirable. If it is via an annotated link template, any challenge should be at the original page where the short description exists. controversial in situ annotations that are challenged should be referenced. Any content beyond headers and lists of wikilinks may require references following verifiability requirements like any other article. A lead section that is transcluded should be referenced in the original article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At what size should statement-lacking-outlines be converted into templates?

[edit]

The discussion at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law has shifted, as another user has not challenged my assertion that WP:STAND does lot apply to outlines which lack statements. Now the other user is asserting that such outlines should be converted to templates. But at what size? You can join the discussion here: User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive 25#Outline of Catholic canon law.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 01:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of outlines?

[edit]

Hello — I'm considering launching a proposal to deprecate outlines, redirecting them all to their corresponding non-outline articles. To help inform whether to move forward with that or not, I was wondering what arguments folks here might have for preserving (or deprecating) outlines. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tried before (a few times) to no avail. Academic topics do these to help with see also spam..... sort of like bibliographies. Moxy- 23:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy, looking through the CENT archives, the most recent thing I could find is this from 2011. Is there anything more recent? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Transhumanist: would know more. I take it that you mean both outlines and indexes correct?Moxy- 23:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb and Moxy: Dear Sdkb, we should start by addressing your concerns and observations. Maybe we can point out factors that you haven't pondered, or other possible solutions. Why are you considering getting rid of outlines?    — The Transhumanist   08:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Transhumanist, fundamentally, because they have not worked. They have very low pageviews, even for the biggest topics, and correspondingly few editors (and incomplete/outdated information as a result). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb, Moxy, and Pbsouthwood: But they do work, for a great many people. As a set, the outlines get many millions of views per year. Far more than most websites — that alone makes the outline system worth keeping. And there are many other reasons for keeping Wikipedia's collection of outlines...

There isn't another resource like it on the Web — outlines are essentially topic lists arranged by subject, that double as collections of bookmarks of Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia itself is incomplete, yet it is incredibly useful, which also applies to the outline system...

Even for incomplete outlines, the structure of their subject remains relatively intact, which helps with navigation. Being in list format, outlines are easier to read and edit than navigation templates, and have the added benefit of supporting annotations, which navigation templates do not.

While they are helpful for browsing subjects' topics across Wikipedia, they are also useful for mapping out subjects in general: Wikipedia's outline system is a subject classification system. Its lists are a great source for mining search terms to aid search queries, for quickly getting familiar with the concepts and jargon of a subject without having to read in depth, as well as with the parent-offspring relationships between a subject's subtopics.

For those who need to build an outline on a particular topic, it is far easier to start with "incomplete" Wikipedia outlines and build upon those than starting new outlines from scratch. And then the expanded outlines stay in the (Wikipedia) cloud to be easily returned to later as needed and where they can be discovered by others.

Outlines are useful to those who need to see what Wikipedia offers in a particular area. Categories chop subjects up into small units which can make looking at a whole subject in the category system very tedious, while most outlines show a subject's entire structure on a single page.

Outlines are also frequented by users who find them useful because they match their learning style; they tend to be hierarchical thinkers who find the tree structures of outlines intuitive.

Proposing the end of outlines will likely have the same result as in the past: a huge heated debate between editors who never use outlines and those who do, wasting a lot of time and effort to arrive at no consensus.

I hope this explanation has helped show that there would be a net loss to the Web if outlines were removed from it. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   21:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) - (P.S.: I've pinged Pbsouthwood, one of Wikipedia's best outline editors, as he has a way with explaining the benefits of outlines. He may also know others who can shed light on their usefulness. --TT)[reply]
Considering most readers don't see or have access to navigation templates these are the only overview navigation tool we have for them. Moxy- 23:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I was unaware of that. I don't have a mobile device, but the mobile version of Wikipedia can be browsed via desktop computer by inserting an "m" into an article's URL, like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science. Sure enough, no nav templates. Thank you for pointing that out. That makes outlines even more important as navigation aids.    — The Transhumanist   01:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ec] Hi Sdkb, Both outlines and indexes can be useful to editors who are working on expanding coverage of a topic area. Outlines are particularly useful as they map out what has been done and help suggest where the gaps still exist. They are more useful when adequately annotated, which is not that common, but annotation with short descriptions is a tool we have that helps, and using {{annotated link}} in an outline also helps show where short descriptions can be improved.
Like Wikipedia in general, outlines are normally incomplete and out of date, but that does not make them not useful. I don't know if expanding coverage of topic areas by finding missing articles is within your area of interests and contributions, but if it is, I suggest you try using outlines as a tool before you pass judgement on their utility. The solution to a poorly written or formatted outline is to fix it. Like any other article or list on Wikipedia that will be done by someone who cares and has the time, and does not have to be done immediately, just like stubs may exist for years as stubs and get fixed as and when someone gets round to it.
Low pageviews have never been considered a valid reason to delete. We are not short of space for anything that improves the encyclopedia, so a more compelling reason to deprecate is recommended if you want to continue down this route and be taken seriously. Basically, can you show that outlines do not improve, or actually harm, the encyclopedia? Actual objective evidence would make any argument more worthy of consideration. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that one of the reasons for a lack of records of previous discussions is that they tend to remain informal, and may never reach CENT records. There may be something in this page's archives. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could probably be done better, but I would argue strongly that they're useful. I'd also argue more useful than our series of indices (though it may depend on the subject area, my knowledge of outlines and indices is limited to the linguistics series). There may be a case to keep only one since they're duplicating work for not much practical benefit, but as Peter rightly points out they're a useful way for people to navigate a topic area. Outline of linguistics sees roughly 75 views per day or ~27k views per year which is about 3 times more than Category:Linguistics gets (they're linked in mainspace a comparable number of times; I think they're added by the same template). Those aren't earth-shattering numbers, but they're respectable, especially considering the choice between those two navigation methods. Outline organizes relevant pages contextually on a single page in a way that is sensitive to the information needs of readers, unlike categories which are more technical in their navigational structure. A good example is a reader browsing subfields of linguistics. Outline... Opens with "Branches" and then "Subfields" which are organized by particular information need like "by structure studied" or "by non-linguistic features studied". "Branches" also includes other subfields which do not nicely fall under the above organizational schemes, and movements which are not subfields per se, but philosophical perspectives on the field itself. It efficiently serves the information needs of readers in a nice hierarchy with brief descriptions all on one page. To satisfy that information need under the category system, you'd need to navigate to Category:Branches of linguistics. There you'd get a handful of pages, without context as to the content or relative importance, and further subcatgories which you need to navigate through to find the titular article of the subcategories. That's useful if you're trying to find "pages related to phonetics" but if you want a quick overview of the topic area and how it is thematically organized, categories are not ideal. The articles themselves are probably less equipped for the efficient retrieval of this information since not everything fit for inclusion in an outline would be WP:DUE in an article and readers would sometimes need to browse through multiple paragraphs to find information that is a bullet point in the outline. — Wug·a·po·des 21:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost everything can be done better, but I agree, some are seriously suboptimal, like most of Wikipedia. Nevertheless there is no major effort to deprecate most of Wikipedia just because it could be done better, and similarly outlines do not need to be deprecated. Like stubs and poorly referenced articles, they can reasonably be expected to be improved eventually, and useful work that already exists does not have to be done later. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb You may find it more constructive and productive to propose a reasonable and practicable minimum standard for outlines. If that is accepted by the broader community, we could work on bringing the substandard outlines up to standard, and new outlines would not be moved into mainspace until they meet those standards. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thanks to MeegsC the Outline of lichens has been elevated to featured list status.    — The Transhumanist   01:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece of work, and it is a good example of what an outline can be. Were there any interesting insights into what a featured outline should include or exclude that came up in the discussions? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, MeegsC! The list you nominated, Outline of lichens, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Giants2008 (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heading phrased as a question

[edit]
The following thread was copied from Talk:Outline of lichens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@MeegsC: Pinging you about the "What is a lichen?" heading. Per MOS:HEADINGS headings should not be phrased as a question. Does this perhaps not apply to outlines? —Alalch E. 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an undocumented exception to the MOS:HEADINGS guideline. Standard practice for non-location outlines, is that most non-regional outlines' first subheading is a question of the form: "What type of thing is x?" That's for identifying the parent classifications that the topic belongs to, to help identify what it is. A dog is a canine which is a mammal which is an animal. Fluid dynamics is a branch of physics which is a branch of science. And so on.

We've experimented with non-question formats for that heading, and so far, we have not found a less awkward one than the question. Other headings that have been tried tend to leak, being broader in meaning, to overlap semantically with the lead section or other subsections.

In Outline of lichens, that heading somehow got reworded to become the very question that the lead is supposed to answer, an example of the leakage I just mentioned. But, the body of the section still answers the question "What type of thing is a lichen?, so, it still works.

If you browse the outlines, you'll find the question in most of them that are not regions (countries, provinces/states, counties, and cities). I hope this answer helps.

That the exception is not included in the Outlines guideline, is an oversight. Thanks for bringing attention to this.    — The Transhumanist   21:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: For further information about headings in outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines#Section headings in outlines.
That's a lot, that's a very helpful answer.—Alalch E. 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Just a quick question: I have noticed that Outline of mathematics has {{See also}} links for the lower level outlines, while WP:Outlines seems to suggest that those outlines should be linked from their actual entries. I agree with the reasoning at WP:Outlines and would be happy to edit Outline of mathematics accordingly, but wanted to double-checking that I am not missing anything. Felix QW (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Outlines&oldid=1247344612"