1976:
editors to see what's missing more effectively. Secondly, the categories pages are not particularly helpful. I don't think I've ever used them to find things (if I know what I'm looking for I just do a search). Outlines on the other hand, can be a tool for discovery. Categories are far more unwieldy than outlines, and far more chaotic to manage than an outline could ever conceivably be. Thirdly, I'm surprised that you've only noticed inexperienced editors are making egregious edits on outlines rather than wikipedia in generalĀ ;-). Seriously, it sounds as if you are trying to say that outlines are too powerful/important/potentially controlling to be left to your average editor. You're not the only one making this kind of argument - that outlines are (a) of no use to anyone (they'll find categories just as good) and at the same time (b) it'll be disastrous for wikipedia if we have outlines because people will want to use them and we can't control their development adequately. Clearly there is something about outlines that makes some editors nervous; but I can't help feeling that the criticisms are similar to original fears that the wikipedia project could never seriously work.
772:
body of a full-length article on a general subject for whatever reason, and are much better suited for something more structured and less word-heavy such as an outline. Treating main articles and their corresponding outlines as being anything other than complementary ignores the fact that people learn in different ways. Perhaps we (the wikipedia community), should give more thought into treating outlines and other types of lists as an equally valid vector through information could pass. I read more than my fair share of scientific/mathematic articles on here, and to be honest most editors are not the best at presenting technical information, and their talents could possibly be better used in a format other than prose (such as an outline).
1182:
renamed to "Outline of" yet), and more indexes (alphabetical lists) by an even greater margin. Category pages, which currently make up the most extensive indexing system, number in the tens of thousands (or more?), while there's only about 600 portals. Infoboxes, navigation templates, and see also sections also far outnumber portals, and those are all displayed in article space. Besides all that, the primary purpose of portals isn't indexing, but presenting excerpts, like a Reader's Digest, modeled after
Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page, to be "main pages" for specific subjects. Dbachman, you are either ignoring the facts (and are lying), or you do not know what you are talking about. Either way, you are wasting our time. Please stop.
2379:
various documents they've created while set out, quite as if they are policy, why things should be as they are. To contest a specific point - in your closing comment on that thread you state (in caps) that Lists, Lists of Lists, etc have always been in mainspace. However, Outlines are not simply lists of lists and while they are closer to indices, it is perhaps about time that, since the outlines project has done a job of bringing all the info together, to put it into a sensible place. Mainspace certainly is not fit for purpose and I fail to see any real justification for it over putting them somewhere more logical, such as portalspace or "outlinespace". Perhaps we could have an RfC or
Centralised Discussion?
522:
only report undeniable facts. Even then keeping track of changes over the two articles will require substantial maintenance effort; especially with regard to the infoboxes. Additionally, and that is a more central contradiction issue, the structure of the article, and the focus placed on issues in that article may substantially differ from those in the outlines (e.g. in the mild climate
Netherlands (highest point 322 m ~1000ft) - glaciers are irrelevant, land reclamation/sea defense (polders and dikes) is not - for the mountain mini state Andorra (pop 89,000) on the other hand rivers, ports and military just don't exist).
1196:
and further contribution. More people than ever before are editing and improving outlines, making them better as we discuss them. And it is only reasonable to expect that more and more editors will join the effort as time goes on, improving outlines further still. Your gripes appear to be empty rhetoric (like your chide that outlines are "non-contributions", and your statement that these are "spilling over" into article space even though that's where they already are. How can something in article space spill over into article space? You are not making any sense.)
1146:
types of list articles on
Knowledge (XXG): outlines (structured lists) and indexes (alphabetical lists). These types of list articles have been on Knowledge (XXG) since the beginning; only the names have changed. Previously both types were competing for the same names ("List of") which created a problem, with the two sets of lists clashing whenever someone wanted to create a list of one type when the other type already existed under that name. Differentiating list types has a long precedent on Knowledge (XXG) (including "Glossary of" and "Timeline of").
2330:
so good) or a "See also" box, the sort of which point to wikinews and commons. The difference, as far as I can see, between lists and OOKs is that OOKs are pretty redundant to their parent article in mainspace. Lists are perhaps redundant to categories, but the difference here is that categories are not in mainspace... ultimately, I see OOKs as being an outline of a topic - I think that is the idea. Portals would be a lot better to read and better to use if they took this form, in some way. Thus I propose moving all OOKs to portalspace.
1734:, so it must be because you are making wild assumptions without checking what is really going on. That is very uncool of you. I have all the outlines watchlisted, and it displays a huge list of edits on these every day! Outlines are under continuous vigorous development. Not only do I work on outlines and outline adminstration the majority of most every workday, but a team of highly skilled editors has formed whom have been working hard on these pages for the past year, and that team is growing.
1960:
egregiously incorrect hierarchial arrangements of links by editors unfamiliar with the subject they are making outlines for; including the outline nav template which only covers broad outlines but ignoring subject templates; crosslinking both the main subject and outline pages with "main article" link templates, which completely ignores the sort of page hierarchy the outlines strive to sort out). But really, those are the main flaws with the outline initiative, and they must be addressed.
2232:(edit conflict)I don't know the answer to your (WJScribe's) questions having just discovered Outlines recently. But yours prompted a few questions of my own: isn't Knowledge (XXG) about being bold? Do we need to have a community-wide discussion before something like this is done? (Further, is "community-wide" discussion even possible?) If the articles are thought by editors to be useless, they will be AfD'd. If they are useful, they will be developed. Just my thoughts.
1781:
note that almost all list articles are either outlines or alphabetical indexes, even though the vast majority of them haven't been renamed to "Outline of" or "Index of" yet); and to list the navigation pages from the other namespaces as well (portals and categories). The concept that lists should be subpages of portal:contents is a POV you've been pushing, but it is not the state of the 'pedia. The current practice for lists is covered in the list guidelines.
31:
391:
they need to be corrected wherever they happen to pop up. No promise has been made anywhere on
Knowledge (XXG) that it is free of any type of errors. On the contrary, it acknowledges that it is both a work-in-progress and an open project, and errors are inevitable though easily correctible in most cases. I, and the rest of the members of the OOK WikiProject will do our best to correct any and all errors as we become aware of them.
1956:, which get the most exposure out of any Wiki pages because they are displayed on the main page), nav templates allow for easy navigation and organization between related articles, and categories arrange pages hierarchially. The other is that they are ultimately lists and should be treated at such, but often aren't (especially when it comes to naming; "outline of" isn't intuitive to most people, but "list of" is).
926:(where you should probably take up this argument instead of here) will tell you, outlines are helpful, informative and useful. Have you ever trawled through an article wanting to find something, got to the end and still not found it - use an outline! Every concievable link relevant to the topic, displayed in an orderly manner, unprecedented and unique (hence in my opinion not a
1559:
too, as are the "See also" sections of articles, and infoboxes, and navigation templates, and disambiguation pages - all of which are displayed in article space. Part of the navigation system is outside the main namespace (portals and categories), but the number of links those contain pale in comparison to the volume of links contained within the encyclopedia itself.
1999:
merge any subarticles you can into it. Also, what are these? Articles? Lists? Disambiguation pages? Because there are certain quality guidelines that need to be adhered to for these various formats, but the outlines by and large ignore them, instead focusing on hieriarchies without context and slapping the lead from the main article on the page.
992:
listing existing content. And yet you insist on making a big fuss in advertising your non-contributions wherever possible. Where is the community consensus for this huge number of new "type articles"? You are literally duplicating
Knowledge (XXG), creating a (crappy) shadow version of each bona-fide article. What on earth is the merit in that??
1553:). They simply weren't called "outlines". They were variously titled "List of x", "List of x topics", and "List of basic x topics". In the guidelines they have been referred to as "structured lists". Structured lists make up about half of the lists on Knowledge (XXG) (thousands). The other half are mostly alphabetical lists (indexes).
2272:: "Outlines". That's the English name for structured lists. They've been on Knowledge (XXG) as long as lists in general have - the other main format, that has been around just as long are alphabetical lists. Structured lists and alphabetical lists make up the vast majority of lists on Knowledge (XXG) - the rest are tables.
2378:
I do remember reading that a while ago - what I'd really prefer to see though is a proper community wide discussion about this, rather than (like this discussion indeed!) hidden on some talk page and (perhaps inevitably) ending up with several of the few users heavily involved in
Outlines pointing at
2021:
Of course one of the consequences of my not having much time to participate in
Knowledge (XXG) these days is that I find myself out of touch from time to time. I would be interested however in tracing the roots of this venture. Presumably, given that it involves the fairly major step of introducing a
1663:
Outline pages are not a "spawn of satan". They are article indices. As such, they do not belong in article namespace. That's all. If you think that moving these pages will "bury" them, well tough, every page in Portal space has authors that invested time in it, and if they are "buried" this will mean
1620:
Any topic that is linked is an article. That does not make them any less topics. They don't stop being
English terms when you put link brackets around them. All articles, including list articles and outline articles use links in a dual purpose fashion to present information and to point to further
1519:
Correct. They hold validity, as will be made clear in my answers to your points below. And thank you for posting your criticisms of outlines. Each point you raise forces us to rethink through the rationales for outlines, their purposes and roles on
Knowledge (XXG), and how to explain them better.
1451:
Moving outlines to portal space will cause confusion. Many outlines (thousands) aren't titled "Outline of" yet - do those go too? And timelines are historical outlines, which adds hundreds more. But if Knowledge (XXG)'s tables of contents go, why not its indexes too? Why would one type of "article
1195:
You've claimed that the outlines are causing problems ("more problems than they are worth"), but you haven't pointed out what they are. Nor have you explained how these problems (whatever they are) are any different from other problems on Knowledge (XXG) that are handled in the due course of editing
991:
appears to be a project that generates more problems than it is worth. I only even came across your activities because you go out of your way to inappropriately tout whatever it is you think you are doing in hatnotes and at the top of talkpages. In short, you are not contributing any content, you are
958:
Dbachmann, the term "Outline of" in the titles is not the subject of these articles, but the articles' type. Type designators have been used in the titles of list articles since Knowledge (XXG)'s beginning. "List of", "Timeline of", "Index of", "Glossary of", and "Outline of", are various names for
771:
However, as of right now there are a handful of cases where the two are evenly matched- and then we come to the debate of how we should be thinking about information dissemination. There are a number of people (and I will include myself in this category), who will very rarely actually read the entire
501:
P.S.: I noticed you reverted a hatnote which referred to the "front of the book". Well, most encyclopedias consist of many volumes (of books), and many subjects on Knowledge (XXG) are the equivalent of volumes. It's logical to interpret the article with the subject's name as the front of its "book"
248:
Also your analogy with maps goes wrong in that case. It is not always best to consult a map before you go on a journey. If you want to experience the atmosphere of a place (say Rome; or a natural park) it maybe best to wander around for a bit first, and only once you have the big picture take the map
2329:
The "root" of the Outline of Knowledge is located under Portal:Contents. It follows as logical to me that all other OOKs should be in Portalspace. The fact that Google etc won't pick them up is a benefit. Users should be directed to OOKs from the main article - by means of either a strapline (not
1858:
My take on this is that a stand alone list is useful and that the outline should refer to that list (using e.g. a main article pointer), and only mention the most important ones. A list of 70+ organisations would in my opinion block readers from continuing reading the outline, losing all information
1780:
They aren't subpages of Portal:Contents, and never have been. They are list articles in the main namespace. The purpose of Portal:Contents is to list articles from the main namespace, including featured articles and list articles (including outline articles, index articles, and glossary articles -
1564:
List articles, including outlines, serve 2 functions: their primary function is to show the structure of a subject - the topics it consists of and the relation of the topics to each other. Their secondary function is to provide links to the presented topics. Note that this approach is also applied
1482:
Some portal developers will insist on merging outlines into portals' topics lists, burying them even further, and disrupting the set. The scope of portals' lists and outlines differ, so the outlines so merged would likely be extensively trimmed, defeating the purpose of outlines. The formatting of
521:
This also refers to the issue of contradiction as a quality issue, directly related to relevance and usefulnes. Personally my main worry is about the opening paragraph of the outlines; and the (rather extensive) country infoboxes. My advice would be to keep the introductions as short as possible and
390:
You stated that the hatnote implicitly makes a promise not to present contradictions with the article. That just isn't true. Each outline is a list of articles on Knowledge (XXG). There is no guarantee that they will be error-free. Contradictions are just one type of error, and like other errors
256:
There is not a single bit of contradiction between the two core articles (prose and outline). This is obviously a maintenance nightmare; and I place the challenge with the outline project (as you promote the hatnote) to make sure that at no time contradiction between outlines and their topics exist.
135:
The line is distracting from the article; the readers is here to read the body text. Disambiguation links are different as they help people looking for something completely ELSE from the current article. The proper place for such ADDITIONAL information as about outlines is somewhere at the back, not
2393:
I'm pretty sure people suggested that exact thing (taking the matter to RFC or VP or etc) a number of times in that thread! Also in that thread are links to previous discussions about new namespaces, or about moving groups of pages to an existing namespace. I keep recommending that people read them
1983:
The third general point I want to make is that outlines could be a very helpful tool, but there's nothing compulsory about using them, and I can't see them undermining the whole project as some feverish opposition suggests (not you, WesleyDodds, I hasten to add). I disagree with having links at the
1459:
An avalanche could ensue, taking all lists with it. Almost all lists are either outlines or indexes (the rest are either tables or glossaries). Some would argue that outlines are merely article lists, even though they are more than that. But indexes are more clearly article lists (plain lists of
1209:
By the way, I also have an objection. I object to your approach, in which you have ignored the points others have raised, and without addressing them, continued to pommel us across the Knowledge (XXG) community with your anti-outline rhetoric and dogma. For example, you never answered Willscrlt's
782:
to continue with the prose or go over to the outline. In line with the main wikipedia editing policy stated above, some collaboration should be done between the general wikipedia editing community and WPOOK members in developing some quality/relevance guidelines that an outline must follow in order
244:
With placing the doubt at the "core" of the outlines, all of your following statements make less sense. If outlines are considered additional materials for further reading (on detail level), as I consider them; there is no longer a problem of "wading" through the core article. You will need to have
139:
In the absence of policies proscribing such a line it is up to the editors of an article to decide how it looks like. The outline project is way too much an umbrella project to actually adopt even its own outlines, let alone other articles and should therefore take an extremely modest position. The
2140:
But in 2003, it was linking "ordinary" mainspace articles, not ones beginning with "outline of". Perhaps I could phrase myself this way, a number of articles have been renamed "Outline of foo", and a number of articles have been created with such a title. Where is the consensus for having articles
1975:
If pages being exposed to the light of day leads to sensible merges, that's a good thing. If non-sensible merges are being performed, then we need to look at the merge discussions. Outlines are neither here nor there on that. I am in favour of outlines in no small part because I think they'll help
1229:
I find this whole discussion disturbing, because there is an obvious negative/anti-cabalistic POV being expressed by naming this notice topic as a "shadow" Knowledge (XXG). Most paper encyclopedias have indexes or outlines that help people quickly find pertinent information and directs them to the
1181:
You've also made a massive misassumption and presented the factual error that most "indexing stuff" resides in portal space. Portals are a minor component of Knowledge (XXG)'s overall navigation system. There are more outlines (structured lists) than there are portals (not all outlines have been
1163:
reason why this should not reside in Portal: namespace like all other indexing stuff." Yes I have, many times, in many places. But you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with structured lists and their history before going off half-cocked attacking them. Their location has been discussed
898:
nightmare. They are positively harmful. If you keep them in Portal: namespace, fine, I'll grit my teeth and accept them. But there is no way they can be kept in article namespace. Simply none, excepting the case that there is verifiable literature discussing notable outlines, viz. the hypothetical
644:
A 'normal' wiki usually doesn't have a core structure, and so people don't expect it, but Knowledge (XXG) has quite a lot of material, and various ways of organizing it. Having a link in the sidebar to the contents page will help people to discover what organization there is. (whether perfect or
414:
Concerning your final P.S., the outlines are topical guides. They serve as tables of contents to the subjects, not to the subject's main article. The subjects on Knowledge (XXG) are comprised of many articles, and the outlines are a guide to those. As per your request, I've reworded the hatnote
260:
The quality of both articles is about equal; or at least the outline referred to in a hatline should at least be of eqaul quality as the article it is placed in. Without this information, the reader does not have all information to make an informed choice and may end up with navigating away from a
2277:
In September 2008 a set of structured lists called "Lists of basic topics" was renamed to "Topic outlines of", and in March 2009 the titles were simplified to "Outlines of" to describe the lists' format more accurately and differentiate the pages from indexes (alphabetical lists). Prior to this,
1739:
The subject of each outline article passes Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guideline, otherwise we wouldn't have regular articles on these subjects in the first place. As in the titles of other list articles, the subject is preceded by the type of article the page is. Therefore, there's also "List
1558:
Most of Knowledge (XXG)'s navigation system is in article space, because that's where most interlinking takes place. That's what navigation is: hyperlinks. All links included in articles are part of the navigation system. And yes, outline articles are part of Knowledge (XXG)'s navigation system
959:
lists. The type portion of list articles' titles is not subject to the Notability guideline and never has been. Notability applies to the subject of an article, not the article's type. And as a type of article, lists are presented in the main namespace, and as far as I know, always have been.
240:
I know you are a driving force behind the Outline project, and I think it has some merit. However I think your statement " We have 2 core pages on major subjects: the article and the outline" is really overdoing it. I have found no evidence outside the Outine project that the Outlines are part of
2394:
before starting a new proposal, so that the past mistakes/tangents/distractions can be avoided, and so that all the issues that need to be considered are included - otherwise the proposal will once again get bogged down in "but what about ..." subthreads. E.g. Pure navigation pages like those in
2144:
As to the discussions you link to, they certainly explain why you think having "outline of" article in the mainspace is good for the project, but they don't help me discover whether your viewpoint is widely held (or indeed whether this issue has ever been discussed widely amongst the community).
1998:
Right now my main worry is that outlines are being made when they are unnecessary/redundant. There seems to be a rush to make them without really analyzing if they are needed for a specific article. General rule of thumb with any article is if the main articles is under 30kb, you should probably
1979:
What needs doing? I suggest that all outlines are semi-protected as a matter of course, to aid communication between editors (IPs, like Ingrid Bergman, don't talk much) and to help egregious editors disegregise themselves (I'll add that word to wiktionary once I'm finished here). Secondly, there
1590:
No, they are articles in the article namespace. They have never been subpages of the portal you mentioned. That portal only includes top-level lists that don't match the formatting of pages in the main namespace. They are heavily graphically formatted with background colors, etc. The list of
1145:
These are list articles, built in accordance with Knowledge (XXG)'s list guidelines, and quite proper. They used to be called "List of basic x topics" or "List of x topics", which have been around as long as Knowledge (XXG). And if you look at lists carefully, you'll see that there are two main
783:
to remain up top. If it doesn't, it should remain in the "see also". I also agree with the ambiguity of "topical", perhaps there exists a better way to get across this WP's true intent? Regardless, I think a consensus should be made soon and a section dedicated on this project page to the topic.
517:
My point is that everything is gradual. For something that is highly visual (ie placed in a hatnote), relevance and usefulness has to be beyond debate and very high. Something of medium to low quality can never have a very high, beyond debate level of relevance and usefulness. So in that light,
394:
You mentioned that you believed quality was the key factor for placing a link to an outline at the top of an article. Perhaps relevance and usefulness are important too? If we place the links where they are most relevant, according to the function the outlines are intended to serve, then more
2325:
In the past months, I have been more of a reader of, than an editor of Knowledge (XXG). So, as a reader of Knowledge (XXG), I'd like to say that I find Outlines - in mainspace - to be misplaced and confusing. When I was looking for information on a topic, Google presented me with "Outline of
1464:
via "What links here" for a small portion of them (2000+). There are many more aphabetical lists than this without the templates. Lists of people could follow (alphabetical lists of people articles are biographical indexes), and lists of places (alphabetical lists of articles about places are
535:
Where Britannica and other edited encyclopedias have an editorial board that can make sure these type of structures are stable, and as frequently updated as the related articles; Knowledge (XXG)'s rather anarchic structure (for all the good that it brings in terms of people available and quick
1959:
That's not even getting into run-of-the-mill structural and conceptual flaws I have encountered with scores of outlines (copying and pasting article leads wholesale into outline pages; making outlines for subjects that have pages under 30kb, thus making them ripe candidates for merging; often
353:
The hatnote is especially useful for those with some familiarity with a subject, who may be interested in seeing what we offer about it. It is also very useful to those who aren't sure what they are looking for. The hatnote, which offers a topical guide to the subject's overall coverage on
974:
I am not objecting to list articles, I am objecting to yet another kind of "type article", and at that one that doesn't have any purpose other than repeating the scope of another article in list form. Look, I do not see why you insist this needs to be in article space. You fail to present
1273:
topics" indicates, are not articles (i.e. prose), but are structured and annotated lists. I think it would be prudent to make sure that there is consensus that Outlines are problematic before soliciting administrators to remove them. In any case, this discussion ought to be continued at
1591:
featured articles is there, and the top-level list of list articles, the top-level list of outline articles, the list of glossaries, etc. But the articles themselves (featured articles, list articles, and outline articles, and glossaries) reside in the main namespace and always have.
1399:
Dbachmann, you keep talking about outlines as if they are the spawn of satan, maybe, and I don't mean to offend, you just need to get a grip and move on, they're not hurting you, or the wiki as a whole so until the point at which they are, which I doubt will ever come, just leave it.
261:
well written article to a really bad outline, which would be bad. In other words, an outline referred to in a hatline should have a quality class at least equal to the article of which it is a hatline. Again, a lot of responsibility goes to the outline project to make sure it is.
1293:
You ignored Skomorokh's questions and his points, and you failed to answer or address them. I'm still waiting to read what you have to write in answer to Willscrlt's and Skomorokh's posts. Consider those questions re-asked and the points re-raised here by me. What are your
161:
The outlines are like menus that allow the reader the opportunity to select what he wants to read about the subject to fill his mental appetite. Placing the link to a subject's outline at the end of the article is like offering him the menu after he has eaten his
171:
You mentioned the "reader is here to read the body text". That is not necessarily so. The reader is there probably because he typed the subject's name into Google or into Knowledge (XXG)'s search box. He is looking for information on the subject. Format is
252:
One other issue I have with this, is that by placing so much emphasis on the outlines being a second core element; a reader should be able to blindly assume that if there are 2 core articles with complementary information, they fullfill at least 2 requirement
2114:
There has been much discussion, much of it in large venues (Village pumps, the Sidebar redesign project, etc) so it is widely known about, but there was no "original thread asking permission". Many (but not nearly all) of the past discussions are collated at
207:
It's usually best to consult a map before you start your journey. That's one of the functions of outlines: they serve as site maps of Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of each subject. The hatnote makes the "map" easily available. Nobody searches for "Outline of
531:
Without the guarantee of stable, high quality, very frequently updated/maintained outlines, these outlines can still be highly valuable supporting material for the main article; but not to an extent they should be advertised as equal importance (the hatnote
765:
when the pertaining outline's quality matches or surpasses that of the main article. I don't think it'd be constructive to immediately direct the average casual reader to an underdeveloped/incomplete outline when the article itself would better portray the
745:
And for what it's worth, "topical" is a little ambiguous, as an adjective - I think the "relevant to current events" meaning is more commonly understood than the "arranged by topic" one, and it's not immediately clear what a "topical guide" is going to be.
680:
Form follows function, not the other way around. Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress. Our readers know this. That's not something to be ashamed of. Every reader is a potential editor. "If you build it, they will come" (but only if they can find it).
1001:
If you can agree to restrict your activities to Portal: namespace, your project can coexist peacefully with the actual encyclopedia. If you keep trying to let it spill over into main namespace, you will be asked to satisfy the criteria for inclusion, viz.
2278:
both structured lists and alphabetical lists were titled "List of" - their formats weren't differentiated in their titles, which was a bug in the system (2 types of pages competing for the same titles). So structured lists now had a name of their own.
850:
Please no. That only applied to the word "Outline". It isn't grammatically correct to say "Outline of shark". Ā :) Thank you for finding the ambiguity. I've fixed that part of the instructions so it is clearer. Let me know if it makes sense now.
612:
When I proposed that the "Contents" link be added to the sidebar so it could be seen from every page on Knowledge (XXG), some people had doubts, citing the quality level of the contents pages. Fortunately, the community did not agree. Shenme aptly
140:
hidden comment however, implicitly, claims ownership of the article. Ownership is against Wiki core policies, and even if it was not, it has responsibility; i.e. that you guys fully adopt the article and edit its content in a highly constructive way.
2363:
to get the majority of the meat of the matter. Moving to portalspace is problematic, and creating any new namespaces is problematic - Details and links in that thread. Feel free to ask about anything that isn't specifically addressed thoughĀ :) --
2199:
99:
270:
A final PS: In the hidden comment it states that an outline is a table of contents of the subject. This can only be true if the Outline has the exact same structure as the TOC structure of the "core" article. Please rephrase that in any case.
2049:, which goes back to 2001 (under various names, primarily "List of basic topics"). It didn't change too much for a few years after that, but it's been growing rapidly since 2007. More detail is more complicated, how much do you want?Ā :) --
1006:. Any article in main namespace needs to fulfil this. You have caused tremendous damage by creating literally hundreds of content forks. I would expect some minimal amount if collaboration in trying to clean up the mess you have created. --
1444:
Lists moved to portal space will be effectively buried. Portal space doesn't show up in searches by default, and when they are added to search results via "my preferences" the subpages of portals make the search results unreadable and
314:
By "core", I was referring to scope, with respect to the subjects. Both the article and outline on a subject are a top-level or all-encompassing page with respect to that subject. They each form a "core" for the subject. Think of an
512:"quality was the key factor for placing a link to an outline at the top of an article. Perhaps relevance and usefulness are important too?". I fully agree, I think you have sufficiently convinced me of the relevance and usefulness.
2186:
others. They were initially all named "Foo basic topics", then "Basic foo topics", then "List of basic foo topics", then "Topical outline of foo" or "Topic outline of foo", and currently "Outline of foo". (I commented on this at
733:
This seems like an unhelpful misuse of hatnotes; hatnotes are usually for disambiguation purposes, and may be skimmed or ignored by someone already familiar with Knowledge (XXG) structure, who knows they're at the right article.
336:(a link to which is included on the menu on the sidebar which appears on every page of the encyclopedia, and another link on the Main Page itself. With respect to Knowledge (XXG), you can't get more central or "core" than that!).
1234:
a paper encyclopedia, but that's no reason to dismiss good ideas that help visitors locate information and gives more access to articles that are sometimes difficult to locate without already having considerable knowledge in a
1455:
More confusion: the best outlines are evolving into de facto glossaries (though hierarchically structured). Are glossaries to be moved as well? Or will the outlines that qualify as glossaries be moved back to article
930:). Although I see that you are already aware of it as you have posted in various places before and always got a positive response from someone. So, as you are already aware, they're a type of list, and fall under
536:
improvements) is very ill-suited to ever accomodate the guarantee for stable and frequently updated articles. Therefore, in my opinion the outlines as positioned now a aiming for an unrealistic level of ambition.
979:
reason why this should not reside in Portal: namespace like all other indexing stuff. You do not seem to want to understand the problems you are creating, especially with difficult-to-maintain topics such as
266:
By placing references to the outline at the bottom all these issues are solved, as in that case it is merely "further reading". Less ambitious compared to "core" but something that you can reasonably live up
127:(Hidden) <!- LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE as it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for this subject. Tables of contents always belong at the front of the subject material. Thank you.--: -->
777:
On a less philosophical note and coming back to the point, I think that a tailor-made "seemain" template at the end of the lead-in paragraph would strike a balance between the two- giving the reader the
1761:
well good, because I do hope the outlines see vigorous development by interested editors. I fully understand the concept behind "outlines". I fully understand their potential utility. They are part of
1873:
There's no way that I know of to make sure it never expands beyond a certain point. By default, we notice a section is too large after the fact. Then we clean it up. Can you think of another way?
2268:
This type of content has been around about as long as Knowledge (XXG) has. They're "structured lists" (one of the two main formats of lists included in the list guidelines), renamed to their more
332:
And while they may not be part of Knowledge (XXG)'s "Core" WikiProject, they are part of Knowledge (XXG)'s "core" structure, as the OOK is a central component of Knowledge (XXG), being part of its
2188:
1647:
All internal links refer to another location on Knowledge (XXG) and in that respect they are self-referential, but those aren't the instances of self-referentiality that are advised against in
1711:
You have created hundreds of "articles", and you are not maintaining them. You have just dumped them in article space and left them to rot. You cannot defend your hundreds of pages as passing
1040:
wikipedian who's shown such vehement opposition to the concept. If the outlines are such a problem, don't you think there'd be more of an uproar in the community? Perhaps you'd like to review
1793:
I always have a feeling that outlines are just something that's half-portal and half-list. It certainly leans towards the "list" side so quite frankly, I don't like the idea of outlines.
1765:, which is a highly respectable project, and peace to anyone investing time in it. The problem isn't with outlines, it is with you and your blatant misconduct in touting the project. --
2326:(whatever it was)", and I was utterly confused and lost by the link directory presented to me. It took me a few moments to realise that this wasn't, in fact, what I was looking for.
1033:
1715:
in any way. And you are refusing to recognize that this is what you have done. Already, your "contributions" have caused a lot more problems than they are ever going to be worth. --
441:(Hidden) <!- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE as it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Knowledge (XXG)'s overall coverage of this subject. Thank you.--: -->
1269:? That guideline is primarily concerned with the phenomena of POV forking and unintentional duplication, which are not issues here. Outlines, as their etymological past as "List of
1904:
For the record. The original editor (Buaidh) introducing the long list has taken my comment to heart and moved the lengthy list to a more relevant place. Much appreciated, thanks.
354:
Knowledge (XXG), provides readers with an opportunity to overview the subject before they get bogged down in prose. And it lets them see the "big picture" so they don't get lost.
645:
not a separate topic). And, actually, pointing people to the contents page and getting their resulting comments will improve the page. Don't wait for the improvements first...
1980:
needs to be a culture of adherence to more or less generic outline formats, and clear sets of rules to be followed. Specific outlines should not involve much creativity at all.
1889:
I agree with you, there is no way that an outline could cover every single aspect of an issue; it should only cover the core of the topic. For readability, for relevance, etc.
1211:
1315:
You haven't shown how outlines are content forks that violate the cfork guideline, and you haven't shown how outlines have created "tremendous damage" as you mentioned above.
797:
Agree. People should find links to outlines on the contents page(s), and links to the article that the outline covers, but not the link to the outline on the main article.--
1549:
Outline articles have been on Knowledge (XXG) since the beginning, but you already knew that, because you and I have covered this ground before (which means you are being
2283:
Working generally from the top subjects down, other structured lists scattered around Knowledge (XXG) have slowly but surely been being cleaned up, renamed, and added to
1536:
navigation system". I have no issue with that. Outlines are part of Knowledge (XXG)'s content indices. You only started spamming article namespace in a bad way in 2009.
1051:
members could consider keeping rough outlines in draft space until filled out to a TBD point of completion. If nothing else, it'd be nice to not have to see the word
2287:, resulting in an ever improving integrated system of outlines. I've been working on structured lists (outlines) since 2005 (initally under my previous account name
2179:
1686:
Lists are defined as a type of article. And as such, they belong in article namespace. Both indexes and outlines (structured lists) are types of list articles.
1944:
There are two main problems that the recent development of outlines encounters. Basically, the intended ground they cover is redundant to main articles,
1465:
geographical indexes), etc. What about glossaries? They aren't any more annotated than the best outlines. Are all lists to be moved to portal space?
1479:
turned into subpages, accessing them will be much more difficult. Typing in "Portal:Outline of knowledge/Outline of whatever" will get old very quickly.
1365:
1132:
Dbachman, your post reads like a threat. I welcome all constructive criticism of outlines. It helps them get better. Vague criticisms are useless.
1448:
Besides showing the structure of a subject, outlines serve as tables of contents. How useful is a table of contents if you remove it from the book?
1460:
article links) than outlines are. So surely they'll be next. And there are thousands of alphabetical indexes in article space - just track the
297:
When I mentioned "core", I was writing in common English, not specialized wiki-jargon. Sorry for the confusion. Let me clarify what I meant...
583:
far. Not only that, but OOK's development is accelerating. Realistic is relative. It's not like we're shooting for 3,000,000 articles. Ā ;)
1859:
after such a list. For that reason I would not expand first and summarise later; but make sure it never expands beyond a reasonable length.
1648:
1416:
1097:
2100:
827:
2421:
I'd be happy to help or advise on a draft discussion-opener, but I'm not going to start it myself again (I started the Nov 2007 discussion
541:
Extreme summary of the above: "Outlines: Yes; but it is a maintenance risk, and the project should have a more realistic ambition level".
76:
71:
66:
2030:
and those good things. But oddly, I can't seem to find anything like that. Could someone kindly point me in the right direction? Thanks,
1655:, it should not report this about itself." You shouldn't have removed that statement and inserted your own point of view in its place.
2360:
2123:
1925:
1372:
245:
some idea of the core story, before you are able to contextualise/interpret the more detailed levels to which an Outline gives access.
1250:
Dbachmann, you never answered him or addressed his points. Here's another, posted by Skomorokh, asking you to clarify your position:
1945:
241:"core" of Knowledge (XXG). Of course if you can point me to an agreement/policy where it is named as such I am happy to reconsider.
2345:
Or better yet, why not an Outlinespace? This is clearly not the same thing as a portal, but it is not exactly an article, either.
738:
specifically says not to use hatnotes to link to related articles - I'd have thought a "See also" link, a "seemain" template or a
2407:
1412:
1093:
949:
1835:
I think it's fine to develop sections in this way in outlines. But once they reach this point of development, they should be
1524:"eight years of development" is a joke. "Six months of attacking Knowledge (XXG)'s integrity" would be more like it. You have
2022:
whole new type of content to the mainspace, there was some kind of RfC or Village Pump discussion that decided that this was
1953:
1816:
upping the number of international organization memberships to well over 70! is a clear example where we should NOT go, per
1603:
and are as such self-referential. They do not have any referent outside Knowledge (XXG) and hence cannot be argued to pass
873:
Reading the previous version I do not understand how I could missunderstandĀ :-), but nevermind it is even clearer now!!! --
2403:
181:
We have 2 core pages on major subjects: the article and the outline. That's ambiguity, and the choice must be made clear.
2089:
2399:
2141:
called ] in addition to ]? For that matter, it might be helpful to know when the first "outline of" article was created?
249:
and look for some interesting, but rather specific landmarks (e.g. the largest tree of the forest, or the wishing well).
1036:. I don't know what vendetta you have against outlines, but it's tiring and improper. As far as I've seen, you are the
2309:
1929:
1874:
1848:
1782:
1750:
1496:
1341:
960:
852:
710:
477:
230:
761:
Throwing my two cents into the midst of all this- I agree with the argument that a hatnote can only even begin to be
2071:
to many mainspace pages strikes me as quite major and I'm surprised not to be able to find where it was discussed.
1989:
1984:
top of pages as that would be privileging this particular way of organising information, but at the bottom is fine.
579:
All Knowledge (XXG)'s pages share the same maintenance risk. And almost nobody believed the OOK project would get
38:
1843:
47:
17:
862:
OK makes sense, did not understand that when I read the previous version. Makes much more sense now, thanks!!! --
2104:
1651:
guideline. Here's the correct context: "if an article itself becomes famous or is the subject of a joke told by
144:
In other words, please stop this. If you want to refer people to outlines, put it at the bottom of the article.
2296:
List formats (including structured lists and alphabetical lists) were initially covered in the second edit to
2395:
1894:
1704:
1060:
788:
2269:
1949:
937:
2180:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)/Archive 28#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"
2039:
1461:
1837:
1656:
2004:
1985:
1965:
1799:
1817:
1699:, outlines also include information in the form of annotations, section leads, etc. For examples, see
1533:
2422:
2415:
1700:
1408:
1089:
945:
2175:
2116:
2064:
1695:
of their information and navigation purposes. Aside from the information presented by an outline's
1041:
735:
2384:
2335:
2150:
2076:
2035:
1770:
1720:
1681:
Your use of terminology is awkward. "An index" is an alphabetical list. Outlines are not indexes.
1011:
908:
436:
122:
2429:
2369:
2207:
2160:
2131:
2054:
1890:
1847:
be applied to the section (using list content instead of prose, of course). What do you think?
1380:
1056:
784:
751:
2301:
2297:
1438:
1310:
1266:
988:
931:
927:
923:
919:
895:
1745:
I hope I've helped you and others understand outline articles better. Thank you for your time.
1909:
1864:
1825:
835:
831:
819:
546:
276:
149:
1712:
1627:
1604:
1003:
2000:
1961:
1794:
877:
866:
842:
2284:
1731:
1631:
1275:
1231:
1048:
739:
2433:
2388:
2373:
2354:
2346:
2339:
2314:
2288:
2255:
2211:
2154:
2135:
2085:
2080:
2068:
2058:
2008:
1993:
1969:
1934:
1913:
1898:
1879:
1868:
1853:
1829:
1803:
1787:
1774:
1762:
1755:
1724:
1574:
1501:
1421:
1403:
1384:
1346:
1102:
1084:
1064:
1015:
965:
941:
912:
879:
868:
857:
844:
823:
801:
792:
755:
715:
550:
482:
333:
280:
235:
153:
2189:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Archive 2#Name of this set of pages
1520:
These are good things, resulting in a better understanding of and refinement of outlines.
1707:. Development takes time, and over time the quality and richness of outlines will grow.
528:
Outlines can have added value, as they provide a structured overview of related articles
190:
Placing a hatnote to an outline on the subject's article lets the reader know about the
2380:
2331:
2147:
2073:
2032:
1926:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stand-alone lists#sneak addition of various other "types of lists"
1766:
1716:
1696:
1373:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stand-alone lists#sneak addition of various other "types of lists"
1230:
more detailed articles in the body of the encyclopedia. I know that Knowledge (XXG) is
1007:
904:
798:
2200:
Knowledge (XXG):Comparison of Knowledge (XXG)'s and Britannica's outlines of knowledge
100:
Knowledge (XXG):Comparison of Knowledge (XXG)'s and Britannica's outlines of knowledge
2425:
2365:
2203:
2127:
2050:
2027:
1740:
of", "Index of", "Glossary of", and "Timeline of" (another type of outline) articles.
1672:
1611:
1581:
1540:
1510:
1468:
1376:
747:
1621:
information. I think the multipurpose function of hyperlinked words is pretty cool.
1905:
1860:
1821:
542:
395:
editors will find the pages and improve their quality. Traffic drives improvement.
272:
145:
1550:
2067:
articles in the mainspace was a good thing to have. The move from one subpage of
2233:
874:
863:
839:
646:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2350:
2163:
is the same page as was originally titled "Biology basic topics" in 2001 (see
1632:
The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a
1490:
I seriously doubt the community will back a move of outlines to portal space.
1483:
portal topic lists also differs, and is much harder to work with and maintain.
1265::Could you clarify what exactly it is about these types of pages that violate
1165:
90:
Clarify OOK's use as a table of contents and how that relates to core policies
2122:
If namespace issues are your main concern, see my replies addressing that at
1820:. Lengthy lists of minor organisations is obscuring the issue. Do you agree?
1565:
in the fundamental design of all articles, to all of Knowledge (XXG) in fact.
2195:
1486:
Outlines would stagnate along with portals, wasting 8 years of development.
1818:
Knowledge (XXG):Outlines#Be_careful_not_to_go_beyond_the_essential_topics
1652:
838:
and so on. Should we rename them all or update the naming statndard? --
257:
Otherwise the hatnote is (implicitly) promising something it cannot do.
2063:
Well, I'm looking for the discussion where it was decided that having
1691:
The most powerful contribution of outlines to the encyclopedia is the
1595:
Nobody is disputing the validity of list articles. List articles list
1528:
in January this year. The WikiProject dates to October 2007, where in
981:
2411:
2194:
The current title-system matches that used by Britannica in their
1809:
international organization membership and going beyond the basics
1452:
list" be in portal space and not the others? What about indexes?
1309:
POV forking and unintentional duplication aren't issues here, so
822:! I did not read the instructionĀ :-) but followed the example of
2406:, etc. In contrast to (subjectively-)encyclopedic pages such as
2124:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Stand-alone lists#Outline namespace issues
1626:
The contents of articles are not subject to Knowledge (XXG)'s
1366:
Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge#namespace discipline
1168:, and the consensus is that they belong in the main namespace.
25:
1952:. Main articles are supposed to be comprehensive (especially
1032:
is redundant. Every point you've brought up has already been
1432:
There are many problems with moving outlines to portal space
460:
I hope I've answered your reservations to your satisfaction.
198:
he potentially wastes his time wading through the wrong one.
1599:
that have encyclopedic notability. Your outline pages list
2361:
Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#Outline_namespace_issues
2026:. And presumably, this was advertised widely, listed on
1532:
you are still very clear that outlines are "part of the
116:
I recently note the following line on several articles:
2164:
2108:
2093:
2046:
1814:
1529:
1525:
1328:
I look forward to your replies with great anticipation.
112:
top of article reference to outline is unnecessary spam
2096:
until Transhumanist and others started overhauling it.
1636:
in Knowledge (XXG). They do not give guidance on the
1664:
that there is no interest in them, because they are
525:
This all leads me to repeat my earlier conclusions:
2170:The titling of the group of pages was discussed in
1212:"Shadow Knowledge (XXG)" alarmist posting at WP:ANI
2291:), but they have been around since long before me.
1668:. If they are useful, they will not be "buried".
1437:They aren't portals. They're outlines, a type of
1371:I've left further notes in reply to your query at
1368:in May, but never responded to the replies there.
93:Write the section "How to develop a good outline"
96:Summarize and split off the following sections:
2047:history of Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge
1569:Your outline pages are not "portals", they are
8:
131:I think this is not ok for several reasons:
2359:Hi. Please check out this month-old thread
1940:The flaws with outlines on Knowledge (XXG)
1649:Knowledge (XXG)'s Self-references to avoid
1924:A relevant discussion is taking place at
1730:Dab, you just told a blatant untruth. I
1047:On a more constructive note- perhaps the
903:themselves are the encyclopedic topic. --
435:For a topical guide to this subject, see
121:For a topical guide to this subject, see
1640:of articles, except for lists of people.
509:Some mixed reactions to your comments.
2111:was linking purely to mainspace lists.
1659:failed to acquire community consensus.
1475:If outlines are moved to portal space
890:move this out of main namespace please
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1506:none of these points hold any water.
212:", because they don't know it exists.
7:
2101:Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge
828:Portal:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge
1732:assume you are not willfully lying
1630:. That guideline clearly states "
1276:Knowledge (XXG):VPP#.22Outlines.22
518:indeed I think quality is the key.
24:
2302:That section in the outline today
2178:. One of the main threads was at
1675:ā continues after insertion below
1614:ā continues after insertion below
1584:ā continues after insertion below
1543:ā continues after insertion below
1513:ā continues after insertion below
2408:Timeline of architectural styles
2090:Knowledge (XXG):Category schemes
1159:You stated "You fail to present
221:The hatnote solves this problem.
29:
1841:as stand-alone lists, and the
1:
2404:Category:Disambiguation pages
2016:
1364:Also, dab, you asked this at
814:The naming standard states: "
371:Concerning your requirements:
194:core article on the subject,
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Outlines
2400:Category:Indexes of articles
2159:The page that is now titled
2105:Knowledge (XXG):Basic topics
802:17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
2434:21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2389:20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2374:06:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2355:05:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2340:20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
2315:03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
1573:to a single portal, namely
1119:I agree with Minnecologies.
742:would be more appropriate.
2456:
2256:19:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2212:19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2155:19:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2136:17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2099:The page currently called
2081:17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2059:17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2040:12:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
2009:21:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1994:16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1970:09:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1813:Hi all, I think this edit
1804:05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
649:04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2174:of the threads linked at
1788:15:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1775:09:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1756:20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
1725:07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1307:To paraphrase Skomorokh:
880:06:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
869:06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
858:00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
845:12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
816:The title is never plural
793:21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
756:09:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
506:22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
1935:23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1914:17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
1899:20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1880:22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1869:20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1854:20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1830:20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1601:Knowledge (XXG) articles
1534:Knowledge (XXG):Contents
1502:20:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1422:14:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1385:21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1347:21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1103:14:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
1065:21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
1055:ever used on wikipedia.
1016:18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
966:17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
913:09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
830:, I find many more like
716:19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
551:08:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
483:22:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
281:08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
236:23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
154:17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
2396:Category:Lists of lists
2202:for other details). --
1705:Outline of cell biology
894:These "outlines" are a
2126:. Hope that helps. --
1375:. Hope that helps. --
1280:
1237:
651:
2165:earliest page history
2103:was originally named
2088:was originally named
1263:
1227:
642:
502:in Knowledge (XXG).
42:of past discussions.
2416:Outline of anarchism
2304:hasn't changed much.
1946:navigation templates
1701:Outline of anarchism
1628:notability guideline
1462:compactTOC templates
952:) 12:28, 6 July 2009
922:, as I or anyone at
2321:Move to portalspace
987:This isn't proper.
740:navigation template
2161:Outline of biology
2153:
2092:, and looked like
2079:
2038:
1920:Related discussion
1030:is starting to get
832:Outline of crafts
826:. Now checking at
818:"! I just created
2311:The Transhumanist
2300:, back in 2003.
2146:
2072:
2031:
2017:I'm a bit lost...
1954:Featured Articles
1931:The Transhumanist
1876:The Transhumanist
1850:The Transhumanist
1784:The Transhumanist
1773:
1752:The Transhumanist
1723:
1677:
1616:
1586:
1545:
1526:created this page
1515:
1498:The Transhumanist
1343:The Transhumanist
1014:
962:The Transhumanist
940:comment added by
911:
854:The Transhumanist
836:Outline of sports
820:Outline of sharks
712:The Transhumanist
479:The Transhumanist
232:The Transhumanist
82:
81:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2447:
2252:
2249:
2246:
2243:
2240:
2237:
2182:, but there are
1986:VsevolodKrolikov
1769:
1719:
1676:
1669:
1634:separate article
1615:
1608:
1585:
1578:
1544:
1537:
1514:
1507:
1420:
1101:
1044:in the meantime.
1010:
953:
907:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2455:
2454:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2323:
2289:User:Go for it!
2285:this collection
2250:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2238:
2235:
2086:Portal:Contents
2069:Portal:Contents
2019:
1942:
1922:
1811:
1763:Portal:Contents
1670:
1609:
1579:
1575:Portal:Contents
1538:
1508:
1434:
1401:
1313:does not apply.
1082:
935:
892:
824:Outline of ants
812:
810:Naming outlines
334:Contents system
114:
87:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2453:
2451:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2419:
2322:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2306:
2305:
2293:
2292:
2280:
2279:
2274:
2273:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2192:
2168:
2142:
2120:
2112:
2097:
2065:Outline of Foo
2018:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
1981:
1977:
1941:
1938:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1810:
1807:
1791:
1790:
1759:
1758:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1736:
1735:
1709:
1708:
1697:tree structure
1688:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1661:
1660:
1644:
1643:
1623:
1622:
1593:
1592:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1522:
1521:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1473:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1442:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1369:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1210:reply to your
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1045:
1028:This argument
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
996:
995:
994:
993:
985:
969:
968:
955:
954:
891:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
811:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
774:
773:
768:
767:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
538:
537:
533:
529:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
250:
246:
242:
225:
224:
223:
222:
216:
215:
214:
213:
202:
201:
200:
199:
185:
184:
183:
182:
176:
175:
174:
173:
166:
165:
164:
163:
142:
141:
137:
129:
128:
113:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
94:
91:
86:
83:
80:
79:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2452:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2420:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2387:
2386:
2382:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2362:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2353:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2338:
2337:
2333:
2327:
2320:
2316:
2313:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2281:
2276:
2275:
2271:
2270:WP:COMMONNAME
2267:
2266:
2257:
2254:
2253:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2190:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2113:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2075:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2034:
2029:
2028:TEMPLATE:CENT
2025:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1957:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1939:
1937:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1927:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:Minnecologies
1881:
1878:
1877:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1846:
1845:
1844:summary style
1840:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1808:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1667:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1576:
1572:
1563:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1535:
1531:
1530:this revision
1527:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1504:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1494:
1491:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:domino effect
1463:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1314:
1312:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1279:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1236:
1233:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1214:. He stated:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1167:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:Minnecologies
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
990:
986:
983:
978:
973:
972:
971:
970:
967:
964:
963:
957:
956:
951:
947:
943:
939:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
897:
889:
881:
878:
876:
872:
871:
870:
867:
865:
861:
860:
859:
856:
855:
849:
848:
847:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
809:
803:
800:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
785:Minnecologies
781:
776:
775:
770:
769:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
743:
741:
737:
717:
714:
713:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
650:
648:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
534:
530:
527:
526:
524:
520:
516:
511:
510:
508:
507:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
484:
481:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
440:
438:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
393:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
259:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
234:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
220:
219:
218:
217:
211:
206:
205:
204:
203:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
180:
179:
178:
177:
170:
169:
168:
167:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
138:
134:
133:
132:
126:
124:
119:
118:
117:
111:
105:
101:
98:
97:
95:
92:
89:
88:
84:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2383:
2349:
2334:
2328:
2324:
2310:
2234:
2183:
2171:
2024:a good thing
2023:
2020:
1958:
1943:
1930:
1923:
1888:
1875:
1849:
1842:
1836:
1812:
1800:
1795:
1792:
1783:
1760:
1751:
1710:
1692:
1665:
1662:
1637:
1633:
1600:
1596:
1594:
1570:
1568:
1523:
1505:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1476:
1466:
1402:
1355:
1342:
1308:
1270:
1264:
1228:
1160:
1083:
1052:
1037:
1029:
976:
961:
900:
893:
853:
815:
813:
779:
766:information.
762:
744:
732:
711:
643:
580:
503:
478:
437:Outline of X
434:
415:for clarity:
231:
209:
195:
191:
172:unspecified.
143:
130:
123:Outline of X
120:
115:
103:
60:
43:
37:
2107:, which in
2001:WesleyDodds
1962:WesleyDodds
1796:OhanaUnited
1693:combination
1551:incredulous
1493:Sincerely,
1278:. Regards,
936:āPreceding
918:It isn't a
36:This is an
2176:WP:OOKDISC
2117:WP:OOKDISC
1950:Categories
1666:not useful
1404:Highfields
1166:ad nauseam
1085:Highfields
1081:Well said
1042:WP:TEDIOUS
942:Highfields
899:case that
763:considered
736:WP:RELATED
613:concluded:
136:the front.
2196:Propaedia
2148:WJBscribe
2074:WJBscribe
2033:WJBscribe
1838:split off
1034:addressed
799:Unionhawk
77:ArchiveĀ 4
72:ArchiveĀ 3
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
2426:Quiddity
2366:Quiddity
2298:WP:STAND
2204:Quiddity
2128:Quiddity
2051:Quiddity
2045:See the
1673:Dbachman
1653:Jay Leno
1612:Dbachman
1582:Dbachman
1571:subpages
1541:Dbachman
1511:Dbachman
1445:useless.
1413:contribs
1377:Quiddity
1311:WP:CFORK
1294:answers?
1267:WP:CFORK
1094:contribs
989:WP:WPOOK
950:contribs
938:unsigned
932:WP:LISTS
928:WP:CFORK
924:WP:WPOOK
920:WP:CFORK
901:outlines
896:WP:CFORK
748:McGeddon
1906:Arnoutf
1861:Arnoutf
1822:Arnoutf
1713:WP:NOTE
1657:WT:LTOP
1638:content
1605:WP:NOTE
1004:WP:NOTE
543:Arnoutf
273:Arnoutf
210:subject
146:Arnoutf
39:archive
2424:). --
2418:, etc.
2151:(talk)
2077:(talk)
2036:(talk)
1948:, and
1456:space?
1417:review
1235:topic.
1232:WP:NOT
1098:review
1053:crappy
1049:WP:OOK
982:Kosovo
875:Stefan
864:Stefan
840:Stefan
780:option
647:Shenme
532:issue)
315:apple.
196:before
2412:1920s
2385:inp23
2351:harej
2336:inp23
2198:(see
1597:items
192:other
162:meal.
85:Tasks
16:<
2430:talk
2414:and
2410:and
2402:and
2398:and
2381:Mart
2370:talk
2332:Mart
2208:talk
2184:many
2172:many
2132:talk
2109:2003
2094:this
2055:talk
2005:talk
1990:talk
1966:talk
1910:talk
1895:talk
1865:talk
1826:talk
1771:(š³)
1721:(š³)
1467:See
1439:list
1409:talk
1381:talk
1090:talk
1061:talk
1038:only
1012:(š³)
946:talk
909:(š³)
789:talk
752:talk
581:this
547:talk
277:talk
150:talk
104:done
1928:.
1767:dab
1717:dab
1607:.
1577:.
1477:and
1161:one
1008:dab
977:one
905:dab
681::)
504:-TT
267:to.
2432:)
2372:)
2210:)
2191:.)
2167:).
2134:)
2057:)
2007:)
1992:)
1968:)
1912:)
1897:)
1867:)
1828:)
1703:,
1671:ā
1610:ā
1580:ā
1539:ā
1509:ā
1415:,
1411:,
1383:)
1096:,
1092:,
1063:)
948:ā¢
834:,
791:)
754:)
746:--
549:)
279:)
152:)
102:-
2428:(
2368:(
2347:@
2251:t
2248:u
2245:m
2242:a
2239:i
2236:T
2206:(
2130:(
2119:.
2053:(
2003:(
1988:(
1964:(
1908:(
1893:(
1863:(
1824:(
1642:"
1472:.
1441:.
1419:)
1407:(
1379:(
1271:x
1100:)
1088:(
1059:(
984:.
944:(
934:.
787:(
750:(
545:(
439:.
275:(
148:(
125:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.