Knowledge (XXG) talk:Outlines/Archive 3

2387:

understand the overall subject, though ideally people with as broad and deep a grasp as possible. The people working on it need to know not only the subject, but the general Knowledge (XXG) practices with outlines and other navigational aids, and the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant Knowledge (XXG) articles, and their likely development. It's a navigational guide to the actual encyclopedia, not an abstract of the subject. Any good and experienced editors should be able to make an outline for any subject they can understand, perhaps not as well as an broad expert with wide mastery, but probably better than a narrow expert specialist in one aspect. This might perhaps be an area of Knowledge (XXG) that especially does not need an expert, but rather an intelligent generalist--and not a single person--an outline is as amenable to cooperative heading as much as any article. (& if it does need any expertise, it's in making outlines, not in making the subject--just like an index, this is a different skill than writing.) That it needs a subject expert is wrong, not just on whom is actually needed, but also on the basis of fundamental Knowledge (XXG) policy. Any statement here to the contrary is opposed to basic policy and must be withdrawn. (For one thing, just as with articles, we have no way of knowing who is and is not an expert in a subject, except by the quality of their edits here--and that will be judged by the users). The language needs to be revised. Seeing the conflicts above, I'm not about to make a bold edit without explicit support here, but normally I would simply delete or change that sentence. Arthur, much as I respect your, your view above is not appropriate to any aspect of this encyclopedia.

2290:. And it turns out that No. 3 is no longer even literally true: Many of our most high-profile articles are protected nowadays, because not doing harm to BLP subjects and the overall quality of the encyclopedia are actually more important than the "sacred" principle for drawing readers in to turn them into writers. It follows from No. 3 that we are not going to protect articles to prevent random readers from changing lists into outlines, or vice versa, or from creating content forks. But of course we can still decide, as a group, that it's wrong, and undo their actions. And we routinely apply sanctions against editors who fight against a consensus, as opposed to acting out of excusable ignorance with our way doing things. No. 3 is about attracting collaborators; it's not about setting up an artificial rule that ensures that any idiot can degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. 1005:"outlines", or have an outline section, a hybrid, or not use an outline when it is appropriate. What we should not do is forces the ridiculous naming scheme and narrow layout rules on lists or duplicates. Knowledge (XXG) is not a print encyclopedia, and as such there are technical solutions to the problems of arranging the same data in different ways. It would be much better to investigate and develop these rather than force this projects view of how data should be presented on everyone else without consensus. Outlines are a subset of lists, and can exist on list articles alongside other organisational schemes, which shouldn't be dictated from above. 1364:. It's very disruptive and you are thus adding to the evidence that will be used against you. You have potential to become a good editor, but you are expendable, since you are often more trouble than you are worth. You're a huge timewaster here and it needs to stop. How about taking a pause from your project work before you are forced to do so by a topic ban? I think it might be good for you to do ordinary editing for awhile. Even if you took a month long pause, we'd probably not be finished putting out all the fires you have started and fixing all the damage you have done. -- 519:. Note that the second article is already more or less in outline format. On the other hand, going in and restructuring/renaming an existing article is contentious. I would propose 1) No new "Outline of X" be created unless there is no corresponding "List of X topics" (or similar). 2) When there is an existing "List of X topics", put a note in the talk page and the corresponding project page to the effect that the article is being considered for inclusion in the Outline of Knowledge project, summarize what kind of changes that might entail (e.g. inclusion in 304:

and policy pages but might object to what to them would be major, out-of-the-blue changes to article style. I do think there should be some sort of style guidelines for outlines. If this project succeeds and users start using OOK as a way of navigating Knowledge (XXG), then they should see a consistent look to the navigation pages until they land on a content article. But perhaps many of the details should be decided on later after the pages have been used for a bit and people have a better idea of what's good and what's not.--

31: 1648:

a clear distinction between what is a List of and what is an Outline of, and it should apply universally. And once we have is a consistent distinction, existing lists or outlines that do not fit that distinction should be moved. Personally, I think it very important to have both in most cases, but that should be a subject area decision, but one that recognizes that special topics might have a good reason for preferring one or the other.

2305:

such ownership claim this project self-appoints them as experts. That makes it the responsibility of the project to maintain all outlines at an expert level (i.e. comparable to at least Good standards). Needless to say they cannot live up to this (but in communication have not hesitated to shift responsibility for maintaining quality to others, while they demand of these others to follow their project guidelines).

208:

he intends to concentrate on the creation of new pages, in order to avoid further conflict on this issue. TT has now clearly shown that he intends to do nothing of the sort, and inteds to force the change of page names by whatever means that he cant justify. I now have exactly what I need to complete my RFC, clear and incontrovertible evidence that he is acting in a deliberate, provocative and disruptive manner.

1134:

has complained that some outline article have leads that where copied and pasted from the leads of the main article, a practice which has more serious issues than content forking. The current guideline does mention this issue but seeing as Outline of Japan is listed as one of the 5 model outlines is seems that this section is either not being followed very closely or is not clear enough.--

1722:

rejected, than in my view the whole concept of outlines would be rejected, but until that happens (and I hope it doesn't) I see no point in arguing over specific namings or the function of outlines. Let the proposed guideline continue to evolve for now, I've seen no concerning reasons why we shouldn't allow a new type of navigational device to develop.

1654:

Dewy subjects numbers, but I never use them. Everyone else will think differently. If there are enough people, then the solution is rather obvious--do whatever a sufficient group of people in the general area are able to maintain, possibly keeping the less well maintain ones in some deprecated status for future development.

2043:, this is a failure to attribute the authors of the text. There is no reasonably accessible method of checking the origin of the text at the outline page, nor any way of attributing its authorship correctly. This is very similar to the reason we don't allow cut-and-paste moves - as it says at WP:MOVE: 1493:. The articles in question should be renamed to "Outline of x" to match an outline of knowledge so as to provide easy access to these articles. Keeping these articles in "List" disrupts the Knowledge (XXG)'s outline of knowledge and the many, many, benefits inherited from outlines and outline format. -- 2197:

Oh, yes, I forgot. Something like "an encyclopedia that every half-awake moron can edit while also having dinner and watching TV, in the certainty of being immune from criticism in case the outside world is not entirely in line with what they wrote" is part of the self-description of Knowledge (XXG),

1354:

but if they have been started from scratch with an "outline"-type title, they should probably remain so, unless a local consensus votes to change the title. Some can indeed be fixed as proposed above by the addition of a word or words, which may be required to solve the ambiguity inherent in the word

1053:

is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group. This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic. This should especially be avoided on Knowledge (XXG), where one

935:

Agree that this is a problem. I still favour a special name space, despite the old discussions. Outlines don't belong in mainspace, not visibly anyway, just like the contents pages, index pages, glossary pages, etc, aren't supposed to counted towards the number of pages in a book. The current best

468:

Until we can reach consensus outlines, I propose we use both for now. That is a list and an outline of the same subject. These could later be merged if required and any improvements in either be kept. Personally I don't quite get 'outlines' yet but my gut feeling is that they could provide a separate

303:

First, thanks, Lee, for organizing the issues and trying to remove some of the acrimony from the discussion. I agree with Verbal that there needs to be a broader consensus than just the people who read this page before major changes are made. There are many active editors who don't monitor guidelines

278:

The contention cannot be settled by only asking those that are aware of this page. The problem is that the wider community has not sanctioned these edits. My contention is that all outlines should be named lists, there should be no rigid style for outlines, and outlines can exist as a subset of lists

256:

Ok, we seem to have come to an agreement not to move/rename pages at the moment so here is hope we can agree ( to disagree ) so let's see what we can do with the issues at hand, the previous discussion I started 'Lists AND outlines' became fragmented with other issues being cross posted resulting in

207:

Of course I added my "vote". With TT acting in the way that he is, I must act accordingly, else he will get his own way by default. Adding my "vote" does not mean that I agree that a vote is correct, when in fact I do not. TT is clearly acting against what he has stated on his own page, which is that

2704:

have. I'm with you insofar as outlines – as nav aids – should cover only what we do have, not what we might be missing. There are surely good intentions there but it should be left to WP:RA to advertise our shortfalls. It does, however, highlight the huge scope that navigation articles have to cover

2304:

While much of Hans Adlers comment maybe true, this does not take away the justified worry that has been driving this topic. There is concern that the Outline project takes ownership of lists and outlines on all pages in Knowledge (XXG); claiming that expert view is needed to fill these. By taking up

1647:

I perhaps differ from everybody else, and do not think it is a local page by page discussion. Navigational devices are one of the most important things that should be uniform throughout the project. Not doing so is as if each page decided if sections or numbered paragraphs should be used. should be

1418:

All that had no discussion before the move should be reverted to list, and the remit of this project should be decided by centralised discussion. Individual renames should take place after discussion at the article and notification at relevant wikiprojects, including this one. All articles that were

1133:

and found that the lead section was rather long and included such tidbits as the meaning of the Kanji characters for the Japanese name. If outline pages are to be used for navigation then this type of information is not needed and should be moved to the main article if it's not there already. Verbal

1085:

each outline from almost all of the corresponding subject articles' see also sections, each corresponding subject article's talk page, and on most of the corresponding WikiProjects' talk pages. Thousands of notices sprinkled around Knowledge (XXG) also lead to the outlines and the outline project.

826:

Regardless of the format, titles should be chosen carefully, and not be chosen with a rigid mindset that is set in the stone of anal obsessiveness. That an outline article "must" always use a title with the word "outline" in it results in some pretty ridiculous titles. A title should be unambiguous.

318:

Thanks RDB - I agree broader consensus is required before action. I am assuming that this will be through an Rfc. My intention is to see if there were any obvious areas we could agree on first, flesh out problem areas, and come up with actual questions we need the Rfc to address ... I doubt editors

2273:

if I have read this particular statement. Knowledge (XXG) isn't just Jimbo; by now there are a few people here whose opinions about the project matter more than his, and in fact I have seen him do a few pretty inappropriate things that proved he is quite out of touch with the project. That's not to

1895:

I stumbled here after finding a CSD on list of drawing topics, I've reverted this move as there is no concensus for it. Having looked at the wiki lawyering going on round here, with respect to concensus not required I suggest this is taken to a centralised discussion prior to anymore of these moves

1765:

Why are you having a straw poll before you have the discussion? Isn't the question really should we stop renaming lists as outlines or move warring over the name? Is this this the right venue to hold this discussion and when are we going to have an RFC on the whole OOK project? Finally, how fair is

1653:

whether we actually should try to maintain all the separate organization projects is a more difficult question. Most people prefer the ones they use. Myself, I use lists, preferably sortable lists, except for some kinds of cleanup where I use categories. I like the idea of classification by LC or

1569:

I'm sorry but after watching what has been going on, I too question using outlines at all. There appears to be problems all over this project. If decided now to discontinue the outline project it's going to require a huge cleanup by editors, this is not fair to anyone that has to take the time to

1004:

Outlines should not duplicate already existing list articles. If list articles can be improved by organising the material in someway then that should be done at the list page, and not be creating a duplicate in a walled garden with a restrictive set of non-standard rules. Lists can be organised as

780:

From the discussion I've seen this seems to be a major bone of contention. Assuming outlines are valid, if we do have them how ought they be named? To make it simpler let's also assume they are separate from lists and not replacing them for now. Currently 'Outline of...' can lead to article names

678:

Outlines evolved for a long time, but more effort was put into trying to make them better than to update the policies to match the lists, then when this isses started, various attempts to update the polices where made, but they where obviously reverted. Please take this opportunity to explain what

366:

Not sure about this one, should we be talking about restoring articles to their original names prior to current set of disagreements. Personally I think hold off for now leave the current proposals for other editors to contribute to if they wish, maybe editors could reword their arguments in these

2003:

to look at this page, as I seem to have missed it. But now looking through it I see am seeing two or three vociferous champions of this renaming campaign, and nothing at all that says to me that concensus has been sought or achieved, hence the reason I suggested that this is done, quickly, before

2416:

discovers and restructures it. So basically the problem is the fast creation of "outlines" by people who seem to be mainly interested in this navigational tool, while among the people who are actually interested in various specific subjects there isn't much support for them. And this predictable

1721:

which prescribes the exact place of outlines within the encyclopedia: when they should be used, what their format should be like, what, if any, limits on the detail of content are needed, etc. Before we have that settled RfC's like this are rather pointless. If the proposed style guideline is

1603:), these produced a lot of argument but no consensus. Another discussion, especially a non-binding straw poll will only produce more of the same. There are deeper issues involved (see the Discussing issues thread above) and the naming issue can't be decided until some of these can be resolved.-- 2386:

In my view, although an outline should be done from scratch, since there is no point in simply duplicating the organisation of an article, and general articles in Knowledge (XXG) are apt to become quite unbalanced, an outline does not need to be done by an expert, but by people who broadly

710:

There is no limit on what lists can be, the guideline is intentionally vague, which is partly why we don't need extra guidelines etc to deal with outlines, and outlines are subsets of lists anyway. Outline naming and layout should be decided on a case by case basis, and renames shouldn't occur

542:

is hierarchical and would be appropriate to include in an overall hierarchy of general knowledge. So whether it's called a list or not it has a different structure and type than the List of Presidents. Plus, there can arguments made that some of the entries in the geometry list could go under

431:

is a crazy idea. Why add so much more work, debate and antagonism into an already burdensome, volatile debate? Consensus for or against renaming lists should clearly be based on individual cases; the more pressing general discussion is the nature and scope of structured lists, not their very

2403:

I am not sure that we actually disagree. I think we are merely afraid of opposite extremes. I was using "expert" in the loose sense in which it is often used here at Knowledge (XXG). Basically it means someone who is prepared and able to read and understand the relevant articles and then is

2537:

Look, I'm not saying that nobody else should edit any outlines, I'm really not. I just think that if an expert at least gave us an idea of what the major aspects of a topic are, that would make the outline much more useful than if somebody who has no knowledge on the topic put the outline

469:

way from lists to navigate WikiPedia. (I don't believe content forking arguments should be applied to navigation systems). This allows editors to use there energy in creating/improving articles and reduce the heat of the debate further so we can concentrate on more level headed discussion.

735:

lists, but that's barely relevant; the fact is they're distinct from alphabetical lists and offer an entirely different overview. If they were exactly the same thing we wouldn't need a separate set of guidelines. They're not, so we do. Like Lee, I really don't see any logical issue here.

781:

which are objected to (Outline of Geometric shapes). I can see the problems with this. I can only suggest that instead of 'Outline of ...' Outline:' is used, so for example we would have 'Outline:circles' instead of 'Outline of circles', that seems to solve it (in my head at least).

2274:

say that there is anything wrong with these principles, or that they aren't important. I am very familiar with them, even though I don't remember whether it is from this particular statement of Jimbo's, or another source, or whether I just learned them by immersing myself into WP.

1544:

The question is not about a mass renaming, it's about the entire concept of these outlines. While the consensus here is obviously "no," the consensus of this section clearly does not justify a massive renaming of anything to anything else, nor does it protect "outline of" from a

2281:

say: That uninformed edits by well-intentioned editors are sacred. Of course they can be removed. The most important principle, so fundamental that Jimbo took it for granted and it only accidentally appears hidden in No. 6 – don't forget that Knowledge (XXG) grew out of

2049:

The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright

592:

Agree with all of this, but can see no point in creating new outlines while the whole concept is the subject of a review. Especially given the strength of opinion involved. Nothing is so important that it needs to be created or changed before that review is completed.

2699:

Don't ask me, I only got here the other day... although I've spent an ice age exploring the issue since. Red links suck, wherever they are. They usually point to a gap in our namespace coverage of a topic; I say "usually" because they can also point to articles we

1700:

as that would be read as support for the whole "outline" business. The real question is not how to name them. The real questions are whether we want them, in which form, under what quality standards, and what would be an acceptable rate for their creation.

490:

No new outlines should be created until the main issue is settled. No lists should be moved, no articles should be moved from user or project space to "outline of" names until this is settled, no lists should be duplicated and named "outlines" ever.

257:

my head hurting , so please could we stick to that particular issue and no allegations about other editors behaviour / style. If there is another issue that you wish to discuss please start its own thread. (I have not included all the issues yet )

101:

would apparently result in the article being renamed to outline (despite the page currently being a list, so an oppose should result in no change). His arguments are misleading and refer to this page and his project as if they have consensus.

1791:, and should have included at least a hint of the history of the issue: the original set of pages was all called "X basic topics" from 2001 until 2005 (and in 2005, were renamed to "List of basic X topics", and then more names were tried). 1206:

Its a case by case decision, members of this project should propose the changes, ideally publishing them on working groups etc. before making the moves without a mandate. Without that I am not surprised that some have been reversed when

849:

I agree, but would state it slightly differently: outlines should be called "list" unless there is a compelling specific reason in that particular instance - I can't think of any though. The flexibility of lists is much more compelling.

1570:

clean up. If there going to be an RFCU on this? If so, would someone supply the dif please? I was on the fence about this but researching it has made me come down against the use of outlines, sorry to those who really want them. --

222:

That would be an RFCU and, although closely linked, would not address the main issue. However, removing TTs disruptive influence and behaviour, which should have happened long ago, would go a long way towards improving the situation.

408:

To be fair, there have been renames from Outline to List as well. Do we have an estimate on the number of renames that were carried out? If the list is very long then I'm not sure that any action is practical unless it can done

1621:

Agreed. As I wrote above, TT's repeatedly starting these polls or RfC-type things is in principle like forum shopping. He should stop doing it. Repeating the same thing until he gets his way is improper. It's a blatant form of

1319:. No bulk renames should be done, and renames in either direction should only be done with a talk page consensus, disregarding "driveby" comments from this project or other projects unrelated to the subject of the article. — 440:

in there too. Reverting to clearly unsuitable names such as "list of" (especially when the original lists were non-structural) is completely inappropriate and plain disruptive. If we want this to remain on topic and on task,

760:. Outlines are not lists. Outlines are more than lists. Perhaps a generalisation of lists, like a cube is a 3-D generalisation of a square. Also, a list is not an outline, although lists can be found in outlines. -- 962:

The naming "controversy" is indeed a sad waste of time. If the WOOKies had any interest in getting ahead with their project, they would have moved their outlines out of main namspace long ago. They need to reside under

170:

I disagree, the transhumanist had clearly intended it to be a vote, and the (intentionally?) unclear wording and apparently contradictory nature of his vote is just adding to the confusion and not solving this problem.

543:

multiple headings and that's not true for the list of presidents (ignoring Cleveland). So I think there are really two distinct types of articles the the name "Outline of..." for the second type might not be optimal.--

1797:

If anyone would like to confront the difficult aspects of these issues, rather than just commenting in a poll, please read through the TWO (2) items linked in the introduction to the RfC that is being calmly built at

560:- concerning outlines and lists, live and let live. I believe banning new outlines would be highly disruptive (and unfair to outline editors), and would require a wider venue of discussion than this backwater page. 149:

It wasn't a vote until you added you view in vote form bhtp! TT expressed one opinion, Verbal another - discussion could have followed but you added a vote yourself, shortly followed by cries of voting by Hipocrite.

2484:

If outlines are specialist, then they do not belong. Principle No.3 by Jimbo reads as follows - "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as

2440:

All right, the discussion on this page is very unorganized and confusing (which is why we need LiquidThreads... but that's not the point), and, that's kind of ridiculous. My thoughts on all of this are, as follows:

2102:

issues between the subject article and the outline article. The root cause of which is people trying to create outlines about subjects in which they are not experts. There has already been a mention about this with

413:. Even if a mass revert is feasible, I'm not sure that moving them again wouldn't be just as divisive as the original move. Perhaps the move should only be undone if there were objections raised on the talk page.-- 108:: Until this issue has been resolved centrally, no further moves from "list of" to "outline of" should take place. This includes the starting of local rename proposals. The central issue should be addressed first. 1514:, renaming should only be considered where consensus dictates a change, ie on an individual basis. How/why/whether they should have been renamed in the past is also only relevant to individual cases, if at all. -- 2404:

comfortable enough with the matter to become creative. What worries me is the practice of simply copying the structure of an article and its lead. If the only editor who is interested in creating an outline for

2343:

I wasn't aware that we have a problem with too much expert input into outlines. I thought the main problem was mindless duplications. I don't expect that the outline project will be very attractive to experts.

1359:

editing tactics. BTW, repeatedly starting these polls or RfC-type things is in principle like forum shopping. Stop doing it. Repeating the same thing until you get your way is improper. It's a blatant form of

674:

Why? Why can not outlines (no matter what they are named) be different from what lists are today. Knowledge (XXG) evolves all the time, do not just be negative, try to see how the problem that you have can be

343:! GFDL is not an issue, if it is show proof, not just talk, I have showed you that what you stated and argued was blatantly false. That you are still unsing it as an argument is not a nice way of arguing. -- 628:

They are obviously some form of structured list, but I am unsure of the problem with this, if they are lists they could be added to the various types of list that exist already, if not they stay separate.

2922:

This is how the country outlines were created. (I'm not sure about state outlines, but I assume they used a similar format). The step of removing links that will never happen hasn't been undertaken yet.

2808: 2308:

Much of this comes down to the basic problem many editors have with some of the driving people in this project: pushing ideas onto many, many articles without consensus and not being prepared to listen.

2849:

That's really not the point. The point is that there are a lot of things in the current outlines that, if we purely templated countries with absolutely no manual work, unlikely results are bound to pop

1079:

Your application of this term to outlines is puzzling, since most outlines link to scores if not hundreds of articles. Each outline is in fact a collection of links! And there are prominent links

711:

without discussion first. It is the outline project which is forcing a limited definition upon us. I would oppose renaming number articles to outlines, and other than that your example is spurious.

1713:

I'm in favor of the general concept of outlines and think that more navigational devices are good for the encyclopedia. The problem is that the community needs to decide for itself what outlines

2371:

As this thread has been hijacked and and the original problem drowned in general off-topic pontification despite my polite request, I'm separating off my initial post and retitling this section.

2804: 2232:

Could you take this off-topic discussion elsewhere please, and leave this section for discussing if there is a GFDL problem with these introductions, and if so how to fix it efficiently.

527: 2567:

this way; one of the beautiful things about it is the way experts (eventually) appear wherever there is inaccuracy and put it right, using RS of course. It's the appeal for experts to

1396:

be justified in areas that are neither covered by portals, nor can be effectively listified because of irregular structure of the subject and its existing coverage by wikipedia (i.e.

1766:

it to establish a local consensus on a wikiproject and then invite the wider community to comment some days later? That's not consensus building.´ Just to be clear to everyone here,

1263:

The term outline is common-practice in this usage. It also serves as an identity to pages that appear in this manner, since others will be accustomed to ours when they see it. --

2412:

is going to be an outdated content fork of this (highly controversial, for the sake of the argument) subject until someone who wasn't able to push through their minority POV on

2107:. Basically, an outline needs to be done from scratch by experts in the field, not by taking the main article and stripping out everything but the section headings and links.-- 882:

I agree, but am leaving the door open for (a minority of) situations where "outline" might work okay in a title. We shouldn't be anal about the term "list" either.... ;-) --

2420:

And sorry for hijacking this thread. FWIW, I wrote one of my comments above at the same time as the polite request to give the thread back, and didn't get an edit conflict.

319:

would enjoy entering this debate as it currently stood. Some of this discussion should probably be somewhere else or addressed in a different manner, but we're here now...

2627: 2571:

outlines that's wrong here, just as claims of ownership are based on an erroneous assumption that some special dispensation is required to make changes or get involved.

1600: 1596: 802:

Faulty assumption. "Outline of" articles are not valid. "List of circle topics" etc would avoid all the problem issues, and can be organised as best fits the ontent.

2626:

Yes, I know, ridiculing blocked users is bad taste - "forgive me, Your Majesty, I'm a vulgar man but my music is not" -Transhumanist even laid out a "to-do list" at

1527:

obviously a case-by-case question. The title must match the page content. Rename it if it is an encyclopedic list, move it out of namespace if it is an "outline". --

2681:

though ... Seriously: the amount of ludicrous red links discredits the whole affair worse than GFDL violations or content fork hazard. To me it's an indication

2198:

if not its most fundamental principle. The only problem I have with this is: I don't remember where exactly this principle has been written down. I looked at

1189:

filled with articles that are titled "List of" would be confusing. Outline titles that are puns, can be fixed by adding "topics" to the end of them, such as

523:), and invite discussion. Once some kind of consensus is reached then the article could be absorbed into OOK (or not, if that's the way the discussion goes). 1902:"starts the discussion"? What are you talking about? If you bother to look at this page, you will see that this discussion has been ongoing since July. -- 1896:

being carried out. I saw the one brief discussion on ANI, but would suggest Verbal as main protagonist knowing all the arguments starts the discussion.

367:

proposals to make them clearer, less contentious ? It will be fairly easy to find the whole group of articles if needed once we have come to a concensus.

1932:

He has started discussion today on 23 different outline articles, that is if I counted correctly. Are we supposed to bounce around to all of these? --

1086:

Knowledge (XXG)'s Outline of Knowledge is one of the most extensive networks of links on Knowledge (XXG). It is exactly the opposite of a walled garden.

2215: 1768:

the next time someone moves a list to an outline or and outline to a list without a clear consensus for the move then they´are going to get blocked.

1185:- Most outlines have stabilized under their current names for over a year. Moving them would be disruptive. Also, "List" is more ambiguous, and a 1300:

navigation scheme, then this should be reflected in its title and to distinguish them from the other types of lists that exist on Knowledge (XXG).

1828: 535: 912:

Unless the naming system is crucial to grouping or navigatiion, I see the naming controversy as a moot point and a pointless waste of time. --

1835:

The Transhumanist has continued to move "Lists" to "Outlines" despite his agreement to stop and without resolving the dispute here. In fact,

650:

Outlines are misnamed lists, with an arbitrary set of rules that conflict other wikipedia policies and guidelines thrust upon them, that are

388:

All lists should be reverted to "list of" until a consensus for outlines is established, and then a separate local consensus for the rename.

1787:

This was a badly thought out strawpoll. As the main culprit/disputant, Transhumanist should not have started it, should not have started it

1355:"outline". This is a situation where you, TT, if you are the one who created the article or the title, need to avoid exerting your infamous 970:

a possible consensus to create a new dedicated namespace. Outlines are "valid" as content summary, and therefore naturally are sub-pages of

1799: 1297: 520: 2137:

mentality of the people involved in the project. So Outlines yet again show that they are not in keeping with the basic principles of WP.

2056:

Correct me if I'm wrong - but if I'm right this is going to take quite a bit of clean-up, as it doesn't seem to be an isolated case, e.g.

76: 64: 59: 1734: 791: 639: 479: 377: 329: 267: 160: 2859:

They are bound to pop up at the first deployment of the template. But then comes a two-dollar question: why over fifty manual edits to

1952:

After clicking a half a dozen of the difs, he has linked to this page for comment informing that the name could be changed. Click on

699:

or should we adjust the polices? I think we should adjust the polices to work for both lists, 'outline' and number type articles. --

131:

TT is now attempting to use voting rather than consensus to get lists renamed to outlines. This is against Knowledge (XXG) policy.

2036:. There is no record of where the text came from, its list of authors or a link to the original version of the text - nothing. 974:. If at one point this project turns out so successful that a new dedicated namespace seems adequate, they can still be moved. -- 279:- if that is the best way of organizing the material in the article. Other problems such as copying the lead (against GFDL and 2706: 1986:

Sorry I had a look but I didn't see the discussion here since July featured on centralised discussions as I suggested i.e.

1489:(ook) for a good reason, and following their footsteps is not a bad idea. There are also many benefits to outlines, please 1783:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1069: 696: 146: 90: 2214:

Are you serious? Are you telling me that you have you never read the Statement of Principles by Jimbo? Try reading No.3

1245:"List" is far less ambiguous than "outline" in the context of titles. What is your mother tongue? You haven't answered 2133:

This is quite contrary to the fundamental idea that Knowledge (XXG) can be edited by ANYONE. It also demonstrates the

1822: 1227: 1194: 1091: 561: 1623: 1361: 1717:

before it can decide how they should be treated. I think we should develop a well-supported style guideline such as

2705:

in order to be credible, a point which arms its detractors to the teeth. But this isn't just about outlines... see

1062:

are far easier to detect than walled gardens, if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other, then

38: 1035: 47: 17: 1190: 2645: 2947: 2715: 2658: 2577: 2518: 1520: 918: 742: 599: 451: 2864: 1748:. I don't care, and I really wish this dispute would stop spilling over into the rest of Knowledge (XXG). -- 2872: 2868: 1839:

was moved twice by him which means that the move cannot simply be reverted and is intentionally disruptive.

1729: 1482: 785: 633: 539: 516: 473: 371: 323: 283:) also need to be addressed, and the ownership issues of this project regarding lists and their "outlines". 261: 154: 94: 2928: 2179: 1836: 1818: 1631: 1369: 1339: 1323: 1254: 887: 832: 2666: 1389: 2860: 2670: 2409: 1686: 340: 2938: 2787: 2678: 2605: 1293: 2758: 2755: 2424: 2421: 2376: 2348: 2345: 2294: 2291: 2237: 2206: 2203: 2163:, must be done by experts in the field. There may be some exceptions, perhaps including outlines of 2104: 2084: 1705: 1702: 1169:

This is a straw poll to see if there is support for or opposition in the wider community to renaming

2942: 2710: 2653: 2572: 2513: 2333: 2076: 1907: 1557: 1532: 1515: 1465: 979: 941: 913: 765: 737: 611: 594: 582: 512: 446: 1953: 1388:

those that duplicate existing portal presentations or those that are just ignorant collections of

1101:

I was using the term correctly in its English sense. Your comment addresses none of the problems.

1059: 2751: 2503: 2408:

is one who can't be bothered to use their brain a bit more than that, then the odds are that the

2223: 2142: 2025: 1807: 1753: 1724: 782: 630: 470: 368: 320: 258: 213: 151: 136: 2446: 2099: 1490: 1055: 692: 2924: 2746:

Not that it's particularly important, but I happen to own a copy of a German magazine with an

2314: 2176: 1969: 1945: 1627: 1583: 1502: 1365: 1336: 1320: 1305: 1272: 1250: 883: 828: 2269:

I am obviously not telling you that I have never read that statement. As a matter of fact, I

2199: 2040: 1996: 1718: 1064: 1006: 684: 280: 2604:

to add real content, not "outlines" of nonexistent content. Knowledge (XXG) has no entry on

2112: 1883: 1847: 1676: 1608: 1427: 1139: 1130: 1109: 1017: 858: 810: 719: 703: 662: 548: 511:

I think content forking arguments are valid when there are competing navigation pages, e.g.

499: 445:

in the current set up should be changed until we have broad agreement to move ahead with. --

418: 396: 347: 309: 291: 231: 179: 116: 89:

Reason for bringing this: The Transhumanist has again restated his campaign. One example is

2644:

I don't get it. That to-do list is really quite informative; while we all know there is no

2495: 2450: 2134: 1356: 1186: 1171: 936:

place would be in portal space, but I am convinced by TT about the awkwardness of that. --

688: 679:

you want, not just say NO, and lets see if we can get consensus. I give you an example, is

651: 2949: 2932: 2916: 2888: 2854: 2820: 2794: 2761: 2717: 2694: 2674: 2660: 2649: 2639: 2621: 2579: 2542: 2520: 2507: 2476: 2427: 2398: 2380: 2372: 2351: 2338: 2318: 2297: 2241: 2233: 2227: 2209: 2182: 2146: 2116: 2088: 2080: 2005: 1971: 1947: 1911: 1897: 1890: 1870: 1854: 1811: 1773: 1757: 1740: 1708: 1692: 1665: 1635: 1612: 1585: 1561: 1536: 1522: 1506: 1471: 1444: 1434: 1413: 1373: 1342: 1335:

done by members of this project who would never consider editing the article, as well. —

1326: 1309: 1276: 1258: 1232: 1217: 1199: 1143: 1116: 1096: 1024: 983: 971: 964: 945: 920: 891: 865: 836: 817: 796: 769: 744: 726: 705: 669: 644: 615: 601: 586: 566: 552: 506: 484: 453: 422: 403: 382: 349: 334: 313: 298: 272: 217: 186: 165: 140: 123: 2912:

template would work, removing stuff that will never/should never have an article later.--

1068:

and, depending on the circumstances, add both outgoing and incoming links, or suggest a

2913: 2851: 2791: 2539: 2473: 2325: 2057: 1903: 1553: 1528: 1460: 975: 937: 761: 607: 578: 577:. Live and let live. content forking arguments don't apply to navigation systems. -- 538:

is a list since it has no structure other than chronological order. On the other hand,

530:

does not mention Lists which, imo, is what it most needs to include, but it looks like

2286:

project to create an encyclopedia and defined itself with relation to that – is this:

654:

by a few editors active at this wikiproject, whereas lists are open to the community.

2884: 2816: 2690: 2635: 2617: 2499: 2461:

If outlines aren't put in their own namespace, they should have a uniform name format

2394: 2219: 2138: 1990: 1803: 1794:

Hence I'm closing the strawpoll. We did at least get some useful feedback out of it.

1749: 1661: 1409: 209: 132: 2908:(←) But that's a good point. I'm thinking in that case, for countries and states, a 2167:

countries) where a standard format related to the subject may be useful. (However,

1481:

outlines to lists. These outlines make up an easy-to-navigate outline of knowledge.

2468:

aspects are covered in the outline, or by a template for like, states and countries

2310: 1957: 1933: 1861: 1770: 1571: 1494: 1301: 1264: 1208: 680: 2171:

purpose may be better served by a template.) This suggests, again, that outlines

2018:

Original post, now moved below to avoid being swamped in discussion on ownership

1999:, if you could point it to me that would be appreciated. So I am sorry I haven't 1392:; the rest may be kept waiting for a summary execution. Outlines, in my opinion, 2108: 1877: 1841: 1604: 1486: 1421: 1135: 1103: 1011: 852: 804: 713: 700: 656: 544: 493: 414: 390: 344: 305: 285: 225: 173: 110: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2909: 1401: 2455:

Its own namespace would be a rather odd change, but, it makes a bit of sense.

2266:

Am I serious? No and yes. I was sarcastic, but I think you have spotted that.

2875:

says the highest "mountain" is 53 meters above the sea level. But who reads

2790:

article were to be created, it would probably go straight to AfD or PROD.--

2685:(not you alone - the whole OOK team). This nonsense exists for years. Why? 2880: 2812: 2686: 2631: 2613: 2389: 1656: 1455: 1405: 93:, which was renamed recently to Outline. The Transhumanist has also been 1875:

I have asked for the opinion of two involved admins and one uninvolved.

2498:

and in breach of the above principle as set by Jimmy Wales. Nuff said.

2029: 1397: 1149:

Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?

2458:

Not all lists are outlines, and, in fact, most outlines are not lists

2413: 2405: 827:

Outlines can still be called "list..." when it is a better title. --

1595:. There have already been several discussions on the naming issue ( 2472:

I believe outlines are a good thing, but they need an overhaul.--

2128:

an outline needs to be done from scratch by experts in the field.

2417:

quality problem is why they need to be in a different namespace.

1552:

regarding future status. Why is the real question being dodged?

1046: 2563:

Expert input isn't a problem, the entire encyclopedia has been

2937:

A subst template, right. Clearly nothing broken here, it just

2079:

to the affected articles would be one way to add attribution.

25: 2809:

rates Mongols of 1945, on a humour scale, above the Chinese

2202:

but couldn't find it from there. Can you help me, please?

528:

Knowledge (XXG):Why do we have outlines in addition to...?

2630:. Should we rename it "Outline of nonexistent humour?". 2464:

Outlines should be put together by experts, so that all

1384:

the least offensive ones that are more or less regular,

691:? If there is a issue, should we jump in and rename all 2609: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2033: 1246: 534:

to include is what we're trying to decide here. To me,

1226:

With respect to renaming Lists to Outlines, I agree.

97:

votes and started a confusing rename debate where an

1163:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2750:. Unfortunately there are reasons to suppose that 2628:User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country/Humor in x 2612:you may provide some insights into the subject? 1802:. Then, give your thoughts there. Thank you. -- 434:All generalisations should be completely avoided 2512:So I'm not allowed to edit an Outline article? 8: 362:Proposals for Renaming / Reverting articles 2805:Mongolians have a wonderful sense of humor 2748:extensive article about humour in Mongolia 2014: 339:Verbal, can you please read and reply to 2216:User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles 2024:I have noticed that the introduction to 436:and and while we're on the subject, add 1860:An ANI report may be your only route -- 1331:This includes disregarding the driveby 536:List of Presidents of the United States 2863:failed to remove not only nonexistent 2707:Universally popular navigation systems 1419:originally "list" should be restored. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2754:is not entirely a reliable source... 1178:Should outlines be renamed to lists? 7: 1800:User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft 1157:The following discussion is closed. 521:Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge 429:Restoring articles to original names 2665:I think it's a giant leap ahead of 2288:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 2004:anyone goes any further. Regards 1009:is vague for exactly this reason. 697:list of things related to number X 145:Assuming you are alluding to this 24: 1296:that is part of the hierarchical 85:Moratorium on further pages moves 1956:if you want to reply I guess. -- 1779:The discussion above is closed. 1698:Refuse to take part in this poll 29: 2807:, for a start. Another witness 1000:Outlines can form part of lists 2277:Please notice what No. 3 does 1487:their own outline of knowledge 1049:, Knowledge (XXG) included, a 683:a list or not? Does it follow 1: 2608:; perhaps, in the absence of 1380:It's a case-by-case process. 1036:Knowledge (XXG):Walled garden 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Outlines 2950:21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2933:16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2917:11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2889:18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2855:17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2821:17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2795:11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2762:08:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2718:08:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2695:07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2661:05:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2640:04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2622:02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2610:the editor who "outlined" it 2580:22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2543:21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2521:20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2508:18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2477:18:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2428:08:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2399:04:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 2381:21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2352:19:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2339:19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2319:19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2298:19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2242:18:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2228:18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2210:15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2183:15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2147:14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2117:14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2089:12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 2006:15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1972:11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1948:11:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1912:11:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1898:06:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1891:05:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1871:05:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1855:05:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1812:05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1774:03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1758:22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1741:20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1709:15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1693:15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1666:14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1636:14:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1613:13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1586:13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1562:11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1537:11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1523:07:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1507:07:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1472:06:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1445:05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1435:05:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1414:04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1374:04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1343:04:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1327:04:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1310:04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1277:07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1259:04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1233:04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1218:04:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1200:04:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1144:15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1117:05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1097:03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1025:14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 984:11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 946:08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 921:07:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 892:00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 866:15:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 837:14:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 818:14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 797:13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 770:08:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 745:07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 727:05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 706:04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 670:14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 645:13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 616:08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 602:07:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 587:07:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 567:02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 553:02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 507:14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 485:13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 454:07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 423:00:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 404:14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 383:13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 350:05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 335:00:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 314:00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 299:14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 273:13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 218:13:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 187:12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 166:12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 141:09:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 124:07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 91:List of string theory topics 2677:. They would fit nicely in 2028:was lifted direct from the 1626:and is very disruptive. -- 2968: 2646:humor in the United States 2011:Ownership and expert input 1352:Probably most of the time, 1183:No. I oppose renaming them 1054:of our core principles is 147:robotics topics discussion 2098:This is a side effect of 2062:Outline of Ancient Greece 1491:read this short paragraph 1400:is more or less regular, 1191:Outline of drawing topics 2867:but also the incredible 2175:be in article-space. — 1781:Please do not modify it. 1675:I oppose renaming them. 1160:Please do not modify it. 776:Name of outline articles 438:all and any name changes 2873:Geography of The Gambia 2865:Mountains of the Gambia 1593:This is a waste of time 1542:Not at all the question 1483:Encyclopedia Britannica 540:List of geometry topics 517:List of geometry topics 2869:Glaciers of the Gambia 2041:WP:COPY#Re-use of text 1837:List of drawing topics 1817:Further disruption by 1187:collection of outlines 1074: 2939:hasn't been built yet 2861:Outline of The Gambia 2494:Outlines are clearly 1043: 432:existence. How about 341:Talk:Outline of water 42:of past discussions. 2652:. Who'd a thunk it? 2648:, it seems there is 2105:Outline of chocolate 2070:Outline of Aerospace 1298:outline of knowledge 1125:Lead content forking 624:Are Outlines Lists? 2871:? (For the record, 2683:that you don't care 2667:Glaciers of Senegal 2077:Template:GFDLSource 1390:glaciers of Senegal 513:Outline of geometry 2752:Titanic (magazine) 2671:Fjords of Slovakia 2600:Let's say you are 2410:Outline of widgets 2159:Well, an outline, 2039:Per my reading of 2026:Outline of Hungary 1292:. If a list is an 731:Outlines patently 464:Lists AND Outlines 2801:an anthropologist 2788:humor in Mongolia 2709:, for example. -- 2679:Outline of vacuum 2606:Humor in Mongolia 2095: 2094: 1985:<unindent: --> 1954:his contributions 1910: 1888: 1869: 1852: 1819:The Transhumanist 1683: 1624:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1535: 1432: 1362:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1229:The Transhumanist 1216: 1196:The Transhumanist 1129:I was looking at 1114: 1093:The Transhumanist 1060:orphaned articles 1022: 982: 863: 815: 724: 687:? does it follow 667: 563:The Transhumanist 504: 401: 296: 252:Discussing issues 236: 184: 121: 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2959: 2879:these days... ) 2337: 2330: 2015: 1995: 1989: 1967: 1962: 1943: 1938: 1906: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1868: 1866: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1737: 1732: 1727: 1689: 1681: 1677: 1581: 1576: 1531: 1498: 1479:No, don't rename 1468: 1463: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1268: 1215: 1213: 1162: 1131:Outline of Japan 1115: 1112: 1108: 1056:building the web 1023: 1020: 1016: 978: 864: 861: 857: 816: 813: 809: 794: 788: 725: 722: 718: 668: 665: 661: 642: 636: 558:I agree with Lee 505: 502: 498: 482: 476: 402: 399: 395: 380: 374: 332: 326: 297: 294: 290: 270: 264: 237: 234: 230: 185: 182: 178: 163: 157: 122: 119: 115: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2967: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2786:Honestly, if a 2675:Roads in Russia 2650:humor in Russia 2438: 2326: 2324: 2013: 1993: 1987: 1963: 1958: 1939: 1934: 1884: 1876: 1862: 1848: 1840: 1833: 1785: 1784: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1691: 1687: 1679: 1577: 1572: 1496: 1466: 1461: 1428: 1420: 1266: 1209: 1167: 1158: 1151: 1127: 1110: 1102: 1018: 1010: 1002: 972:Portal:Contents 965:Portal:Contents 859: 851: 811: 803: 792: 786: 778: 720: 712: 663: 655: 640: 634: 626: 526:I noticed that 500: 492: 480: 474: 466: 397: 389: 378: 372: 364: 330: 324: 292: 284: 268: 262: 254: 232: 224: 180: 172: 161: 155: 117: 109: 87: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2965: 2963: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2803:claiming that 2797: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2470: 2469: 2462: 2459: 2456: 2453: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2418: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2275: 2267: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2120: 2119: 2093: 2092: 2058:Ancient Greece 2054: 2053: 2020: 2019: 2012: 2009: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1950: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1832: 1815: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1760: 1743: 1711: 1695: 1685: 1669: 1668: 1650: 1649: 1645:Different view 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1616: 1615: 1589: 1588: 1564: 1539: 1525: 1509: 1475: 1474: 1448: 1447: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1377: 1376: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1313: 1312: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1221: 1220: 1203: 1202: 1166: 1165: 1153: 1152: 1150: 1147: 1126: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1088: 1087: 1076: 1075: 1040: 1039: 1032: 1031: 1001: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 949: 948: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 842: 841: 840: 839: 821: 820: 777: 774: 773: 772: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 676: 625: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 572: 571: 570: 569: 555: 524: 465: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 363: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 253: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2964: 2951: 2948: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2915: 2911: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2853: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2796: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2763: 2760: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2719: 2716: 2714: 2713: 2708: 2703: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2657: 2656: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2544: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2522: 2519: 2517: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2475: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2457: 2454: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2435: 2429: 2426: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2329: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2127: 2126: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2051: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2042: 2037: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2010: 2008: 2007: 2002: 1998: 1992: 1973: 1970: 1968: 1966: 1961: 1955: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1942: 1937: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1881: 1880: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1867: 1865: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1851: 1845: 1844: 1838: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1795: 1792: 1790: 1782: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1690: 1684: 1682: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1652: 1651: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1580: 1575: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1548: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1518: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1469: 1464: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1443:per verbal. 1442: 1441: 1436: 1431: 1425: 1424: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1358: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1214: 1212: 1207:discovered.-- 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1174: 1173: 1164: 1161: 1155: 1154: 1148: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1124: 1118: 1113: 1107: 1106: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1051:walled garden 1048: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1008: 999: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 966: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 947: 943: 939: 934: 933: 922: 919: 917: 916: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 893: 889: 885: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 867: 862: 856: 855: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 838: 834: 830: 825: 824: 823: 822: 819: 814: 808: 807: 801: 800: 799: 798: 795: 789: 784: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 756: 755: 746: 743: 741: 740: 734: 730: 729: 728: 723: 717: 716: 709: 708: 707: 704: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 677: 673: 672: 671: 666: 660: 659: 653: 649: 648: 647: 646: 643: 637: 632: 623: 617: 613: 609: 605: 604: 603: 600: 598: 597: 591: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 568: 565: 564: 559: 556: 554: 550: 546: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509: 508: 503: 497: 496: 489: 488: 487: 486: 483: 477: 472: 463: 455: 452: 450: 449: 444: 439: 435: 430: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 412: 407: 406: 405: 400: 394: 393: 387: 386: 385: 384: 381: 375: 370: 361: 351: 348: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 333: 327: 322: 317: 316: 315: 311: 307: 302: 301: 300: 295: 289: 288: 282: 277: 276: 275: 274: 271: 265: 260: 251: 235: 229: 228: 221: 220: 219: 215: 211: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 188: 183: 177: 176: 169: 168: 167: 164: 158: 153: 148: 144: 143: 142: 138: 134: 130: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 120: 114: 113: 107: 103: 100: 96: 95:WP:CANVASSING 92: 84: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2943: 2907: 2876: 2800: 2799:Well here's 2747: 2711: 2701: 2682: 2654: 2601: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2514: 2471: 2465: 2439: 2388: 2370: 2327: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2270: 2177:Arthur Rubin 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161:to be useful 2160: 2074: 2055: 2048: 2038: 2023: 2000: 1984: 1964: 1959: 1940: 1935: 1878: 1863: 1842: 1834: 1825: 1796: 1793: 1788: 1786: 1780: 1767: 1762: 1745: 1723: 1714: 1697: 1680:Burningview 1678: 1672: 1655: 1644: 1592: 1578: 1573: 1566: 1549: 1546: 1541: 1516: 1511: 1495: 1478: 1459: 1452:Case by case 1451: 1422: 1393: 1385: 1381: 1351: 1337:Arthur Rubin 1332: 1321:Arthur Rubin 1316: 1289: 1265: 1228: 1210: 1195: 1182: 1177: 1170: 1168: 1159: 1156: 1128: 1104: 1092: 1081: 1080: 1063: 1050: 1044: 1030:Dear Verbal, 1012: 1003: 967: 914: 853: 805: 779: 757: 738: 732: 714: 695:pages to be 681:147 (number) 657: 627: 595: 574: 573: 562: 557: 531: 494: 467: 447: 442: 437: 433: 428: 410: 391: 365: 286: 255: 226: 174: 111: 105: 104: 98: 88: 70: 43: 37: 2538:together.-- 2032:article in 1247:my question 36:This is an 2602:encouraged 2373:Knepflerle 2271:don't know 2234:Knepflerle 2173:should not 2081:Knepflerle 1550:discussion 1402:Philosophy 1175:to lists. 693:X (number) 606:Agree. -- 2914:Unionhawk 2877:Geography 2852:Unionhawk 2792:Unionhawk 2702:shouldn't 2540:Unionhawk 2474:Unionhawk 2445:Some say 2334:reasoning 2328:Abductive 2072:, etc. 2066:Aerospace 2034:this edit 1628:Brangifer 1554:Hipocrite 1404:is not). 1366:Brangifer 1357:ownership 1251:Brangifer 1058:. While 938:SmokeyJoe 884:Brangifer 829:Brangifer 793:contribs) 762:SmokeyJoe 675:adressed. 641:contribs) 608:SmokeyJoe 579:SmokeyJoe 481:contribs) 427:Exactly. 379:contribs) 331:contribs) 269:contribs) 162:contribs) 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2500:Bhtpbank 2449:, I say 2447:WP:CFORK 2220:Bhtpbank 2139:Bhtpbank 2125:I quote 2100:WP:CFORK 2050:expires. 2001:bothered 1829:contribs 1804:Quiddity 1750:Carnildo 1497:penubag 1267:penubag 1249:yet. -- 1172:outlines 1045:On many 652:WP:OWNed 411:en masse 210:Bhtpbank 133:Bhtpbank 106:Proposal 2910:subst'd 2485:sacred. 2436:My 0.02 2311:Arnoutf 2284:another 2200:WP:FIVE 2075:Adding 2030:Hungary 1997:WP:CENT 1960:Crohnie 1936:Crohnie 1864:Snowded 1771:Spartaz 1719:WP:LIST 1574:Crohnie 1567:Comment 1398:Anatomy 1333:renames 1302:Cacycle 1294:outline 1211:Snowded 1065:be bold 1038:states: 1007:WP:LIST 968:pending 685:WP:LEDE 443:nothing 281:WP:LEAD 39:archive 2944:mikaul 2925:Danger 2712:mikaul 2655:mikaul 2574:mikaul 2569:create 2515:mikaul 2496:WP:OWN 2451:WP:IAR 2414:Widget 2406:Widget 2323:Amen. 2180:(talk) 2135:WP:OWN 2109:RDBury 1879:Verbal 1843:Verbal 1605:RDBury 1517:mikaul 1423:Verbal 1386:delete 1382:Rename 1340:(talk) 1324:(talk) 1136:RDBury 1105:Verbal 1013:Verbal 915:mikaul 854:Verbal 806:Verbal 739:mikaul 715:Verbal 701:Stefan 689:WP:MOS 658:Verbal 596:mikaul 545:RDBury 495:Verbal 448:mikaul 415:RDBury 392:Verbal 345:Stefan 306:RDBury 287:Verbal 227:Verbal 175:Verbal 112:Verbal 99:oppose 2850:up.-- 2759:Adler 2565:built 2466:major 2425:Adler 2395:talk 2349:Adler 2295:Adler 2207:Adler 1736:Space 1706:Adler 1662:talk 1462:Klein 1070:merge 1047:wikis 787:(talk 783:Lee∴V 635:(talk 631:Lee∴V 575:Agree 475:(talk 471:Lee∴V 373:(talk 369:Lee∴V 325:(talk 321:Lee∴V 263:(talk 259:Lee∴V 156:(talk 152:Lee∴V 16:< 2929:talk 2885:talk 2817:talk 2756:Hans 2691:talk 2673:and 2636:talk 2618:talk 2504:talk 2422:Hans 2377:talk 2346:Hans 2315:talk 2292:Hans 2238:talk 2224:talk 2204:Hans 2169:that 2165:real 2143:talk 2113:talk 2085:talk 2068:and 2060:and 1991:cent 1908:(𒁳) 1885:chat 1849:chat 1823:talk 1808:talk 1789:here 1763:Hmmm 1754:talk 1731:From 1726:Them 1703:Hans 1632:talk 1609:talk 1558:talk 1547:real 1533:(𒁳) 1503:talk 1485:has 1467:zach 1458:. -- 1454:per 1429:chat 1410:talk 1370:talk 1306:talk 1273:talk 1255:talk 1140:talk 1111:chat 1019:chat 980:(𒁳) 942:talk 888:talk 860:chat 833:talk 812:chat 766:talk 721:chat 664:chat 612:talk 583:talk 549:talk 532:what 515:and 501:chat 419:talk 398:chat 310:talk 293:chat 233:chat 214:talk 181:chat 137:talk 118:chat 2881:NVO 2813:NVO 2687:NVO 2632:NVO 2614:NVO 2390:DGG 2279:not 1965:Gal 1941:Gal 1904:dab 1746:Meh 1715:are 1657:DGG 1579:Gal 1529:dab 1456:NVO 1406:NVO 1394:may 1317:Meh 976:dab 733:are 2941:. 2931:) 2923:-- 2887:) 2819:) 2811:. 2693:) 2669:, 2638:) 2620:) 2506:) 2397:) 2379:) 2317:) 2240:) 2226:) 2218:. 2145:) 2115:) 2087:) 2064:; 1994:}} 1988:{{ 1810:) 1756:) 1688:✉ 1673:No 1664:) 1634:) 1611:) 1599:, 1560:) 1512:No 1505:) 1412:) 1372:) 1308:) 1290:No 1275:) 1257:) 1193:. 1142:) 1082:to 944:) 890:) 835:) 790:• 768:) 758:No 736:-- 638:• 614:) 593:-- 585:) 551:) 478:• 421:) 376:• 328:• 312:) 266:• 216:) 159:• 139:) 2927:( 2883:( 2815:( 2689:( 2634:( 2616:( 2502:( 2393:( 2375:( 2336:) 2332:( 2313:( 2236:( 2222:( 2141:( 2111:( 2083:( 2052:" 2047:" 1831:) 1826:· 1821:( 1806:( 1752:( 1660:( 1630:( 1607:( 1601:2 1597:1 1556:( 1501:( 1408:( 1368:( 1304:( 1271:( 1253:( 1138:( 1072:. 940:( 886:( 831:( 764:( 610:( 581:( 547:( 417:( 308:( 212:( 135:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Outlines/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index