Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:44, 3 August 2009

Template:FixBunching

	Lists Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template:FixBunching

• WT:SAL

Template:FixBunching

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Template:FixBunching

sneak addition of various other "types of lists"

"list of" and "timeline of" articles are indeed a time-honoured component of Misplaced Pages. But any suggested new "type of list" in article namespace must be subject to serious scrutiny, and its inclusion would be subject to a clear consensus. For example, there was the attempt to introduce "lists of topics". These were essentially "list of Misplaced Pages articles", and they have been properly delegated out of main namespace, to Portal:Contents/Lists of topics. The same holds for "outlines", which are essentially also lists of Misplaced Pages articles, only arranged hierarchically. These are properly delegated to Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge. The crucial difference is between "List of $STUFF", where $STUFF is a verifiably encyclopedic topic, and "List of $STUFF_ON_WIKIPEDIA", which is an indexing effort of content on Misplaced Pages itself and as such belongs under Portal:Contents per WP:SELFREF. This distinction is extremely important and needs to be observed scrupulously. --dab (𒁳) 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The types aren't new. They've been around a long time, but under other names, though glossaries have been called glossaries for many years. Structured lists are outlines and renaming them to "Outline of" follows WP:COMMONNAME. The same guideline applies to "Index of" articles. Besides, those two types of article have been competing for the same "List of" name, and you can't name two articles with the same title, so renaming them by type was the most obvious solution.

Lists of topics were not delegated out of the main namespace, only the the page they are listed on was moved, and that was primarily because of the graphical formatting of that page. The topics lists themselves are still in the main namespace, where they've been for years, if not since the beginning.

There are hundreds of lists in article space named "Glossary of", hundreds more named "Outline of", and hundreds more named "Index of". The list guideline needs to be updated to reflect the current state 'o' the 'pedia. The Transhumanist    21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)

1. These Outlines (aka basic topic lists) are not new. See (diff from 2001)
2. The 2 portals you point to, consist of nothing but links to pages in mainspace, and always have done. So do all the other Portal:Contents subportals.
3. There are many types of page in mainspace that are concerned with indexing and/or navigation: Category:Lists of lists (and hundreds of other Category:Lists subcategories) and Category:Indexes of articles and Category:Glossaries and Category:Timelines and Category:Bibliographies by subject and Category:Disambiguation pages (including set index articles), etc. Where they belong has been asked repeatedly, but there is no good solution. We cannot move them out of mainspace because then they would not be discovered in a search. We specifically cannot move them to portalspace, because portalspace is a mess of subpages which is not included in the default search (eg, if one searches for "Africa" in portalspace, only about 4 of those 2621 results are useful: Portal:Africa, Portal:Current events/Africa, Portal:Military history of Africa, and Portal:South Africa.)

Hopefully that addresses some of your concerns. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

it was a long uphill battle to get rid of the "glossary" and "list of topics" articles. You are basically using WP:OTHERCRAP as a rationale for writing guidelines. Misplaced Pages has also had crappy and invalid articles, continuously since 2001, and yet there never was a consensus that this is the way it should be, and consequently we won't accept a guideline telling people it is ok to write crappy articles because they have always been around. This edit summary is an insult to every principle of proper behaviour and our project goals. Misplaced Pages guidelines aren't reports on the status or quality the project currently is in, they are descriptions of what we are aiming for. What we are certainly not aiming for is giant clutter of worthless list article crowding article namespace. Sheesh. We have categories for that. As this very guideline points out very clearly, "Stand-alone lists are Misplaced Pages articles; thus, they are equally subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies". I haven't seen a single attempt at a semblance of a defense of these "outlines" as encyclopedic articles within Misplaced Pages's content policies. If you cannot deliver that, there is nothing to discuss here. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. There are purely navigation-centered pages throughout Misplaced Pages mainspace. From disambiguation pages to lists of lists. e.g. People (disambiguation) and Lists of people.
2. What do you mean by "long uphill battle"? Nobody has "gotten rid" of "glossary"/"index"/"list of topic" articles. There are hundreds of each of those.

Are you wanting to suggest that we move all of these to a new namespace? (That's been suggested before: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists in Nov 2007, where you said: "But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized.")

That said, I think I understand your opposition to including the "Index of " pages in this guideline. Perhaps we need a new 'guideline' for listing these navigational methods? (this also came up recently at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Gee, are those the only forms of navigational facility?) However, the glossaries and outlines and timelines fall somewhere between article-status and navigation-status, depending on how well developed/referenced they are.

As the thread you started in May 2009 at WP:AN concluded - please feel free to start an RfC if you still think there are unaddressed problems. I've tried many, many times to solicit more feedback (usually at the various Vpumps); more is always a good thing, but we would prefer it without the hyperbole and vitriol. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines describe the way things are usually done. Obviously these other types of stand-alone lists exist, and have existed for years. Since these types of lists exist, it seems obvious to me that they should be mentioned here. At present, I don't see consensus here for the removal of this material - mostly I see support for it. I don't see anything near support for the removal of the mention. Granted, too few people have weighed in to really judge. If you want to remove this section, I think (a) you need to make a case why the guideline (which should describe the way things are) shouldn't reflect the reality that these types of lists exists, and have existed far longer than either of us have been on the project.

If, on the other hand, you're argument is that they shouldn't exist, then changing the guideline isn't the way to do it. A major decision about what is acceptable in Misplaced Pages can't be made like this. We need broad discussion by the community. Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What he said. In addition, a style guide is by definition prescriptive, and not descriptive, so that argument simply does not fly. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Guettarda said "Policies and guidelines describe the way things are usually done", and is supporting the retention of the material that dbachmann wishes to delete from this guideline.

The policy page WP:BURO says "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive."

I'm not sure who you were agreeing with, but it wasn't either of those! -- Quiddity (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what style guides actually are, then. Style guides, by their very definition, indicate how something should be written, and not necessarily how they are currently written; they push for a uniform standard. Unless you can show me that the standards prescribed by this style guide are in effect across Misplaced Pages...? Thought not. For example, where I used to work we did a lot of work on behalf of clients. Each of them had a style guide that we had to follow for communications materials produced on their behalf. Did the existence of this guide describe what actually went out of the client? No. It prescribed what should go out. Similarly, the NYTimes has an in-house style guide for grammar, composition, etc. It tells reporters how to write, and by severe application of it, ends up describing what is published. But make no mistake: it is prescriptive, and not descriptive. That is what style guides are. → ROUX ₪ 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is the way rules/policies/styleguides work in the rest of the world, but not at Misplaced Pages. If it worked here as it does in the rest of the world, then we wouldn't have to place the wording "Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive" in policy, would we?

You might like to ask for clarification at WT:NOT, or, read the original thread at Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 20#Proposed new section: Misplaced Pages is not governed by statute. (I do agree that it is a very zen way of explaining things. We actually work with a feedback loop of descriptive/prescriptive. However...)

All of that doesn't change the fact that you were not in agreement with Guettarda, which is half of what I was trying to point out. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

look, if article indices are to be included under this guideline as validly placed in article namespace, you will have to remove the long-standing Stand-alone lists are Misplaced Pages articles; thus, they are equally subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies. There is no way this is arguable, since it directly conflicts with Misplaced Pages policy. These "outlines" by their intention are not Misplaced Pages articles and they do not satisfy Misplaced Pages's content policies. Hence there is no way they belong in article space. This isn't just a no-brainer, it is also a direct corollary of this guideline.

If you can produce a true consensus that "'outlines' are a special class of navigation-centered pages in main namespace, and each topic should have ideally its own 'outline' page", then I will have to stand down as a single editor vs. community consensus. But there is no such consensus. This "WOOK" think is an appalling train-wreck that was snuck into the project under our noses, and the handful of ill-advised people touting it quite apparently aren't even capable of appreciating the genuine and wide-ranging consequences their of their actions.

This is an extremely controversial proposal, and by saying "controversial" I am being extremely polite seeing that nothing has so far been presented in its defense other than WP:OTHERCRAP along the lines of "some such pages have been hanging around main namespace for years".

Make a decent proposal of whatever this WOOK thing is supposed to achieve and then submit it to true scrutiny by the community. Including a coherent rationale why is must be in main namespace, and cannot reside under Portal:Contents. Like a positive rationale why you think this is the way to go, not just WP:ILIKEIT WP:IDHT, ok? Then see how the community reacts. Just don't edit-war over guidelines before you have even bothered to appreciate the concerns raised, let alone presented a coherent answer to them.

This won't go away just like that. If people keep revert warring over this guideline, it'll just have to be slapped with all sorts of dispute tags, rendering it useless. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are supposed to assume good faith. I'll try to explain things more clearly in the next post. The Transhumanist    20:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only 7 pages that are "under" Portal:Contents. Those 7, and their contents (100% of which is links to pages in mainspace), have all been widely scrutinized already (it was added to the Mediawiki:Sidebar in March 2007, in much the same state it is currently in). See Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign for background. There were many discussions at the Village pump, and elsewhere. Items don't go into the site-wide sidebar for 2 years without attracting scrutiny...

It would make things clearer if we could confine ourselves to discussing one topic at a time here: This thread should be about whether to mention any/all of "glossaries, index lists, and outlines" in this guideline.

I've suggested a couple of ideas, such as creating a new page/guideline to cover all the navigation-style pages that currently reside in mainspace (disambigs, lists of lists, indexes, topic lists), as well as the pages that straddle the definitions of navigational-list and clearly-encyclopedic-article (glossaries, timelines, outlines, topic lists). Would you care to respond to any of those points? Or pick a new venue for them to be re-raised in?

To summarise: this is really not the best venue to complain about the existence of the Outline project. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered these Outlines and they just strike me as an unnecessary and very bad idea. Essentially just lists of lists. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of outlines, at least in article space. The argument that they are part of the status quo because they have existed so long is deeply unfair. Nobody was aware of them because they were not linked from other mainspace articles. This is also witnessed by the fact that even though they clearly don't pass the notability guideline, no exception was added for them, not even implicitly (as in the case of disambiguation pages or redirects) through other guidelines mentioning them. Hans Adler 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Outlines and indexes have been included since the beginning; and a proposal

This guideline was created at 7:03 on December 20, 2003. page history

Seven minutes later, at 7:10, outlines and indexes were added, along with the "Format of the lists" section like this:

There are several formats currently used on Misplaced Pages. They include:


*alphabetized lists such as List of economics topics 
*categorized or hierarchical lists such as List of marketing topics or List of finance topics
*annotated lists such as List of business theorists or Production, costs, and pricing 

The best format is difficult to determine because it depends on which of the uses a list is being
 put to in any specific instance. If the list is being used by someone familiar with the 
subject, then an hierarchical list would be prefered. If used by someone not familiar with the 
topic, then an alphabetical list would be more useful. Probably the best compromise is an 
annotated hierarchical list. This is helpful to both groups. Then there is the question of 
whether the list is being used primarily for navigational purposes or 'pedia development 
purposes. There is also the question of whether the user is looking for a specific topic, a 
group of related topics, or just browsing.


Currently there is no single recommended format.

And they are still here today, in the "General formatting" section.

"Outline" is another name for "hierarchical list". "Index" is another name for "alphabetical list".

Both kinds of list were competing for the "List of" titles. You couldn't have a hierarchical list (e.g., Outline of psychology) called "List of" if an alphabetical list (e.g., Index of psychology articles) already had the "List of" title. And vice versa.

Many editors have been working hard to clean up this mess.

The Outline of knowledge WikiProject has been renaming (or merging) existing hierarchical "List of basic" and "List of" articles to "Outline of". The Index WikiProject has been renaming alphabetical "List of" articles to "Index of".

I've been coordinating both WikiProjects, and I've been assisted by a team of very talented editors. I'm very proud of the quality of work they've been doing.

The Transhumanist    20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Glossaries are covered in the Specialized "list of" articles section, right after Timelines.

P.P.S: Proposal and request: please let me update the guideline to reflect the above situation. I'd like to update a sentence in the lead paragraph to this: The titles of these articles usually begin with "list of", "outline of", "timeline of", "glossary of", or "index of".

• Support proposal - as proposer. The Transhumanist    21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Well-explained. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This not only helps organize Misplaced Pages but serves as a way for new contributions and possibilities to emerge. -- penubag  (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - these 'outline' articles should not exist in the first place. → ROUX ₪ 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per ROUX. Almost all of these should be a category hierarchy. The rare exceptions should be just that ... exceptions, not requiring a modification of the guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Categories do not preclude lists. See WP:CLN - The Transhumanist    17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Would List of cutaneous conditions be considered an outline? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a hierarchical list. See also Outline of sharks. The Transhumanist    17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed language and also have issues with the philosophy that is behind the proposal (while of course recognizing the significant value of TH's coordination on this issue and of the efforts of the editors working with him). We have to recognize that at least some of the users who come to this guideline are looking to answer the following simple question: "I want to start an article that is a list; what should I name it?" The current wording gives a great, clear answer: "List of . . . " would be a fine title for that new list article. With TH's proposed language, the editor would have 5 choices. And because TH fails to propose adding any guidance on when to use each of the five, this guideline would not be much of a guideline any more, at least with respect to list naming. More broadly I think WP would benefit greatly by TH soliciting more community input before moving the WP:WPOOK and WP:WPINDEX projects (in the latter of which, he seems to be the only participant) too much farther down the field. On its face, if you read his sentence above literally ("... has been renaming (or merging) existing hierarchical "List of basic" and "List of" articles to "Outline of" and "... has been renaming alphabetical "List of" articles to "Index of", it implies that WP will be left with no "list of" articles, since every list of article is either alphabetical or hierarchical. Is this what the community really wants? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the "significant value" you referred to? The Transhumanist    17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • At this point, starting the process of gathering community thinking on and input to this issue is the most significant, in my opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What about the other 99.9% of the effort? The Transhumanist    19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because "List of" pages are divided between two types, at least some users will come to this guideline looking to answer the following question: I want to start an article that is an alphabetical list, but there is already a hierarchical list named "List of"; what should I name it? The Transhumanist    19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think one answer to that question could be, creating a second, separate list constitutes an undesirable content fork, and WP has many, many other tools (wikitable sortable being only one) to present the information of a single article in multiple ways. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What are they? The Transhumanist    20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Of the five titles presented, "List of" is the most ambiguous. The other four are pretty self-explanatory, but are further detailed under the first heading of the guideline. The Transhumanist    19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• COMMENT the opposers should try to explain why this is a "train wreck", and why this is causing so much harm. So far I've only seen IDONTLIKEIT, but I'll admit I have been unable to follow the very many threads all over the project about this topic. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is difficult to navigate a maze like Misplaced Pages , where articles get added in an uncoordinated manner. There are many ways to do it, and they should all be encouraged. Several good schemes, started early on have withered through lack of participation. There are many ways to organize, & as a librarian, I know all the extensive arguments for and against each of them. In practice, whatever scheme people are willing to work on is the best--anything can work if people maintain it; nothing can work if they do not. As we cannot compel anyone to work on anything, we have to accommodate what our volunteers actually want to do. At the moment, the greatest activity and the hardest work seems to be the outlines. That's therefore where efforts should go. There are other well established methods like categories, that should continue also. The other systems used should be kept around because someone might come along and be willing to keep them updated them also. I was delightd to see The Tranhumanist's project, and so should anyone be who cares about the users and realises that they are unpredictable. And in general, to try to block other people's projects is not usually all that helpful. DGG (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Without having looked at this issue in detail, I'd say that "List of" and "Timeline of" are obvious, plain English names. "Index of" and "Outline of" are rather jargony and ambiguous. The argument that there needs to be a naming convention to allow for both simple and heirarchical lists of the same subjects does make sense. But it's unfortunate for the solution to involve renaming "List of" articles to less clear names. If there needs to be a distinction, couldn't it be "List of" and "Heirarchical list of", or something unambiguous of that sort? Also, I would comment that the question of how long something has been part of Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. All that matters is what is best going forward. As an aside, the namespace question seems like a storm in a teacup. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support so long as it is made clear that indexes and outlines are lists of articles to aid navigation, not lists of subjects as with other "list of" articles. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support It is a fact that we do have lists with these names, there are about 190 Outlines in category:outlines. We have consensus that Outlines should be allowed in main namespace, see results for AFD in 2009,1, 2, 3, 4. 2 KEEP and 2 SPEEDY KEEP. If you oppose go to WP:AFD, WP:RM, WP:RFC or any other WP:3LA and argue in the right place, now let this guideline reflect this consensus. --Stefan 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There may be consensus, but your links don't demonstrate it. Deletion and renaming debates are separate things, even though people want those lists to exist it doesn't mean they like the names. And 190? That's a very small number. To be fair though, I'd say "Index of" is more jargony than "Outline of", which is almost a decent name. And this talk page is an appropriate venue to discuss changes to the associated article, surely. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes the naming can be discussed, and this is a good talk page to discuss it, but this TOPIC is a !vote to include the outline style of pages to the standalone list style guide, do you oppose that???? Because your comment does not indicate that! It only indicates that you think that the name could be better and I agree with that! This is not a simple little nice first dicussion, this have been going on for a long time, see WP:OOKDISC for more background about this issue. The AFD links shows that there is consensus to keep the outlines, which is the only other argument against this proposal except the name change. Since that consensus exists this is the wrong place to discuss deletion and use that as an argument. Lets update the style guideline, take the whole matter to RfC, RM, XXX or whatever to end these teacup storms forever. --Stefan 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm perfectly willing to change my !vote if convincing argument is forthcoming. But "stop arguing here" is not very convincing. I've had a look at the Outlines project, and I can see now how an "Outline" is a high-level guide to a broad subject area. Which differentiates it from most hierarchical lists, and also explains why 190 is a bigger number than it appears, because they are broad subject areas. So at this stage I don't have a problem with Outline lists being described here, so long as their purpose is made clear and it's apparent that they are a specific type of hierarchical list for a specific purpose. As for indexes, I've browsed the teeny-tiny project (11 "index" pages in the category so far) and it still seems pointless to me to rename all "lists" to the more jargony "indexes". Please have a look at Transhumanist's post above - he's not just saying that "Outline" and "Index" should be described here, but that all "List" articles should be renamed to "Index" and all hierarchical lists should be renamed to "Outline". That seems like a bad idea, and I wouldn't want to see that bad idea reflected in the wording of this article. Fundamentally I think most lists should keep the "List of" name because it's the most intuitive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion, TT's proposal states that alphabetical "List of" articles should be renamed to reflect their contents, not all list articles. Articles that serve as an alphabetical index to a topic, the sort that usually ends up in the back of a book, would be renamed, whereas lists that provide detailed information about the contents or are arranged in a information rich order, like List of US Presidents, would be untouched; they aren't indexes under the definition that WikiProject Index uses. To see a long standing example of an index, WikiProject Mathematics has kept one at List of mathematics articles. (NB, I'm not intending to step into WPMath's business here, but this is something that the index project would consider an index.) --Gimme danger (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that does clarify it for me and I've changed my !vote to suit. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see how this accomplishes anything that can't be done by a nav-template or even a well-written parent article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline namespace issues

the question is not, do we need article indices (we do, see Portal:Contents, but why do Transhumanist and friends insist that these indices must be in namespace, and why do they insist to shove them in people's face, by linking them prominently from actual articles, in hatnotes and in special talkpage templates? Let them compile article indices if they think this is helpful and if they enjoy the task, nobody is objecting to that. As long as they stop fishing for traffic to their indices from all over Misplaced Pages.

Seriously, I keep asking "why article namespace" and I keep getting replies like "but Misplaced Pages is so difficult to navigate" wth? How about addressing the actual issue? Never mind that I have never used an article index in my life, using the search function (and google) being far more efficient. --dab (𒁳) 19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We've explained in numerous threads why they cannot be moved to a different namespace.

We've pointed out past threads that proposed new namespaces, or suggested moving various pages to an existing namespace. All of which proposals were rejected. (eg Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists (Nov 2007) and Misplaced Pages:Move navigational lists to portal namespace (Jan–Mar 2008) and many more (earlier list of them at User:Shyam/List_Namespace#Prior_proposals))

I'll repeat some of the points, again:

1. "There are a LOT of navigational pages in mainspace, that for technical reasons should really remain there (Category:Disambiguation pages, Category:Lists of lists, Category:Indexes of articles, and many more), and there are a lot that are somewhere between a navigational(index) page and an article (Category:Glossaries and Category:Timelines and Category:Bibliographies by subject and Category:Outlines and more)." (Quoted from here)
2. "Each type has appeal/benefits/problems. Compare: Japan, Outline of Japan, Index of Japan-related articles, Portal:Japan, Category:Japan, Category:WikiProject Japan articles. (plus all the various sidebar and footer navboxes). Yes, there could be a perfect, autogenerated, utterly-intuitive, never too-much nor too-little indexing system, but noone has built it so far... Until then, we have these manually created lists/indices." (ibid)
3. "The portal namespace is not included in our site search (and cannot be, because the profusion of subpages makes searching portal-namespace painful) hence moving indexes there makes them basically invisible to the readers (unless we scatter links to the outlines everywhere)." "(eg, if one searches for "Africa" in portalspace, only about 4 of those 2621 results are useful: Portal:Africa, Portal:Current events/Africa, Portal:Military history of Africa, and Portal:South Africa.)" (Quoted from here and here)

Regarding "I have never used an article index in my life...", the suggestion that because you don't use a system, the system is therefor useless, is just wrong. Different people appreciate information in different forms - eg infoboxes are always redundant/duplicative (or are meant to be at least) but some people appreciate their format. Also, redlinks: can't exist in categories, but should exist in indexes and articles.

Regarding "shove them in people's face": Well, you and others have alternately accused the Outline project of being too quiet ("shadow wikipedia", "under the radar", etc), and being too loud. I do agree that the hatnotes are inappropriate, but I disagree that the talkpage templates and wikiproject notices are inappropriate. But that's a completely separate issue to namespace, and is not related to this talkpage at all. Mixing up unrelated issues makes discussion vastly more complicated.

Lastly, to repeat one more time, if you want a wide discussion on namespace, or anything else, then take it to a wider venue. AN, and ANI, and here, and the outline wikiproject talkpage, are not appropriate venues for feedback on such issues. The Village pump, or similar, would be appropriate. But as we keep pointing out, it has been tried many times before, so please, please, take the history into account. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It appears that you have — at least a moderate lack of object, if not consensus — for "outline" articles. However, VP is a completely inappropriate venue. Subject (or perhaps Style) RfC, here, or the WikiProject talk page are appropriate venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And you have not explained why the outlines with arbitrary redlinks shouldn't be in project-space; only indicies of actual articles belong in mainspace. (Especially with Kosovo, where some of the redlinks would only be populated if it's a country.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nonsense (hopefully you just meant the RFC suggestion):

We've suggested RFCs before (3 people at the end of this thread, myself in this thread, and 3 people in this thread including you explaining why you weren't going to do it yourself). That would be fine too. But discussing the namespace issues for thousands of pages can't be decided on in some relative backwater like this guideline's talkpage. It affects more than outlines, as you hint at above. Some editors think all indices belong outside of mainspace.

I don't understand why you think all of the 4 VPs are "a completely inappropriate venue" for discussing namespace issues etc, but you're welcome to discuss these issues wherever you think best. In my experience, RfCs tend to get less feedback than VP threads, which is why I suggested it above. Plus RfCs can be incorporated into VP threads. However, it is all up to you, or dbachmann, or whomever.

Re: Redlinks and Kosovo:

You only just asked me to. (?)

• Because they are not plain indices. They are more like Timeline of radio or Timeline of architectural styles - structured lists with encyclopedic potential.
• WP:Redlinks are valuable. Categories can't have them, articles/lists can and often should.
• Are you just talking about drafts that haven't been properly cleaned up (eg Outline of Kosovo), or about good outlines that have proper WP:Redlinks (eg Outline of forestry) ? I agree that some of the outlines are underwhelming, and some were moved out of the list of drafts too quickly. I'd be fine with the idea of moving the very incomplete ones back to projectspace (eg back on top of the redirect at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of Kosovo).

Oh, after much searching, I think you must be referring to the questions at Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#namespace discipline. I hadn't seen that thread in a while. Hopefully the above explanations and suggestions partly answer your questions from there.

I'm happy to try to answer questions, but I'm not infallible, or the projectleader. I've agreed in countless threads that the OOK project needs more feedback and guidance and assistance. I'm thankful for all the people who do assist. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting purely navigational aides in article space is bad. They do not belong in article space since they aren't articles - they consist ENTIRELY of original research since they are all unreferenced (and by definition can't be referenced), they are designed solely and unambiguously designed to be a navigational aid, there is no compelling technical reason for them to not be in article space (unlike disambiguation pages), and they are one giant self-reference. The argument that "users can't find them in portal space" doesn't logically conclude to "they should be in article space". Argue for a new namespace if you have to, but they definitely don't belong in article space. -Halo (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On what basis can you claim that navigational aides in article space is "bad"? The opposite is explicitly stated here, nor do outlines violate WP:DIRECTORY. As far as the OR claim goes, the standard outline template includes a reference section by default with the premise that references should be included. Perhaps the WPOOK editors would have some time to actually work on the outlines instead of having to continually rebut asinine claims based on personal opinion (for the record, I actually a reference on a draft I've been working on). Minnecologies (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "Argue for a new namespace if you have to...". Did you read my comments? We already tried that, many times, and it was rejected each time. New namespaces are bloody complicated. If you want to try proposing it again, read up on the past attempts, and feel free to try it yourself. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

you do not seem to have an understanding of the purpose of list articles. List articles are indeed lists, but they are lists of verifiably encyclopedic entities. They are not lists of Misplaced Pages-related items, which would violate WP:SELFREF. A classic example of a list article is, say, List of Hittite kings. This is undoubtedly an encyclopedic list, and if challenged, it will be very simple to find such a list, an actual list of Hittite kings in the relevant literature, i.e. in scholarly literature about the Hittites. This is the {{notability}} threshold that any list article should meet, and this is how list articles are very different from simple navigational aids. What you are doing here is part of the problem described at Misplaced Pages:Boxes, only you are making it ten times worse by leaving the boxes and letting the clutter spill into main Misplaced Pages namespace without any sort of containment. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But I like putting things into boxes. No one's asking you to put things into boxes, so can't you let the box people have their fun? Sorry to be so flip, but I've been following this discussion for, what, four months now, and I honestly don't understand your strong objection to outlines. I think it would be helpful for everyone if we could have a one sentence summary of "dab thinks outlines should rot in hell and this is why". --Gimme danger (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that certain lists existed in portal namespace at one time. Why? (Where? When?)

"Timelines", and "Indexes", and "Lists of lists", and articles on specific years (eg 1920s, 1777), and disambiguation pages, and glossaries, and MANY more types, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN MAINSPACE. Sorry for shouting, but you seem to keep ignoring that point, which we keep pointing out.

You are correct that it is an imperfect method. You are welcome to try proposing a new namespace for these; but it has been tried before, and failed; I provided a few links above so that you could learn why these previous proposals failed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?"

Fame - X < Fame, .:. Noone is Notable. If you remove the a notable thing about someone, are they less notable? In every case the answer has to be Yes, and therefore no person is ever included in a list of people famous for X. Turned round the other way, just for the sake of completeness, as I suspect it was not intended, everyone is included because everyone is less famous. Anarchangel (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Project-Class List pages
• NA-importance List pages
• WikiProject Lists articles