Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cleanup complete

I reorganized the whole page, including a name change, to make it easier to understand. I hope you like it. Please proofread the page - I've been staring at it for so many hours that I probably missed many obvious errors. --The Tipster 07:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the top section, diff, per my agreement with LinaMishima's comment at Page name. Will discuss below that. --Quiddity·(talk) 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should consider completely redesigning this page. It could be in any style from Portal:Browse to Help:Contents maybe, or combine it with elements of Wikipedia:Start? Are we doing one page which is completist, and one page (Start) for the timid? Are the sections all self-explanatory with a well-worded heading, or do they need to be explained per Nexus SevenTipster's cleanup additions? --Quiddity·(talk) 02:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

??? --The Tipster 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that all the Wikipedia namespace selfrefs don't belong here, that maybe the whole page could be better organized, and perhaps it's very purpose and intended audience needs to be examined. All of which should wait until the sidebar redesign is over. --Quiddity·(talk) 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename and repurpose

I suggest we repurpose this page as a proper list of just the encyclopedic reference pages. To this end, I'm removing all the self-refs now, and will be editing towards a very concise and simple guide, purely aimed at readers (not editors), of all intelligence levels.

I also propose we rename this page to Wikipedia:Contents (currently a redirect to here). --Quiddity·(talk) 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a better idea, which I think you will agree with. This is a more comprehensive page. It doesn't need to be repurposed as it fills its purpose well with respect to all the pages it describes. Why remove them? As a group, they aren't explained anywhere else. Which leads to my suggestion:

The Wikipedia:Contents page isn't being used except as a redirect to this page. My suggestion is that you repurpose that page. That way, this page could be retained to keep track of ALL reference pages regardless of how obscure they may be. We need a page for this. And that would save me the work of creating a new page for that purpose.

The beautiful part of this plan is that Wikipedia:Contents already has the right name for the page you envision. So why not just edit that page?

Well, what do you think?--Nexus Seven 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I still support my original intention. Though perhaps you think I'm intending on removing a lot more material? (I'm not). The page is almost to a state I'm happy with -- I just want to shorten a few of the longer descriptions (like the 3-line description for "List of reference tables"), and possibly add some minor visual-design touches, and then I'll be done.

Hopefully some other editors will give input too, on the page purpose, and page name. :) --Quiddity 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ambiguities

The word "reference" usually means items that are useful in refeerence to outside objects in the world. Think of the refrence section of a library: it has almanacs and dictionaries, encylcopedias of art and of music, quotation books and collect biogaphies. What it isn't, is the catalog. But what's here: guides to where in WP things are, outlines of the classification, lists of the categories like years that WP is famous (or infmous) for. These correspond to the catalog of a library--you use them to get to the real articles. These just organize the articles. What's not here: the almanac and encylcopedia and book of records and so on--these things in WP are the articles.

This is a useful section. Maybe it will help organize the multicateogies that make WP a chaos to navigate and permit different threads of articles on the same subject. Maybe it will make a good index: The title for it could be WP Index, or WP guide, or WP directory--sopmething to indicate that it's about Wikipedia. But not reference pages. They're index pages to me, but anything similar would do. WP Contents has been proposed above, and I think that would be a good choice too. That makes 4. DGG 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Index and Wikipedia:Directory are already used elsewhere. WP:GUIDE is a great idea though, if only for it's HHGTTG connotations :) Should at least be an incoming redirect, if not the actual page title.

I'd support either Wikipedia:Contents or Wikipedia:Guide over the current title. --Quiddity 09:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The overall organization of high-level pages definitely still needs work. Considering an encyclopedia belongs in the reference section, attempts to organize Wikipedia as though it's a library tend to get a bit circular. Rfrisbie^talk 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To me, Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia looks like a "Concise Table of Contents," while this page looks like an "Annotated Table of Contents." I would support calling the concise version Wikipedia:Contents, posting it on the Main Page, and eventually on the sidebar. I would call this one Wikipedia:Annotated contents Wikipedia:Contents and cross-link it with the concise version. Rfrisbie^talk 14:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm starting to like calling this page Wikipedia:Contents. :-) Right now, there's really not all that much difference between the different "TOCs hubs," but this one is starting to become more refined than the others. It's probably better for the Main Page/sidebar TOCs link to have some comments, and the length here seems fine to me. Rfrisbie^talk 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Explore and Wikipedia:Basic navigation; and Wikipedia:Introduction 3 should point to one of them. ;) We'll figure it out eventually... --Quiddity 19:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's 3 4 votes for a move - I've added a {{db-move}} tag to Wikipedia:Contents to allow for a simpler move process (requested moves is severely backlogged). --Quiddity 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Hoo! Way to go! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

References pages project

I added a border, header and background of the style at Wikipedia:Community Portal for Hue:330. There are similar styles at the other reference pages. I'm also going to put the "project" box {{Reference pages project}} at the top of each of those talk pages to propose we discuss common substantive and look-and-feel topics here. Rfrisbie^talk 22:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages with the template are added to Category:WikiProject Reference pages. Rfrisbie^talk 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Reference pages (header bar)

The design of Template talk:Reference pages (header bar) is being contested. I attempted to add a link to Wikipedia:Reference pages but it keeps getting reverted. Other editors please weigh in. Rfrisbie^talk 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've wanted to add that same thing for a while; that way we could remove the then-superfluous footer box at the same time. I've added some replies at the other talk page too. --Quiddity 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

consensus achieved, problem solved

footer bar

Re: Potentially removing the Template:Reference pages (footer box) from these pages. This is the only content in it that's not already listed on this page (plus my annotations):

• List of people by name

Lists of people would probably be better, but that's already included at Lists of lists, List of reference tables, Lists of topics, and Lists of basic topics.

• List of countries

already included at Lists of lists and List of reference tables.

• List of cycles

very interesting, but lots of very dubious/irrelevant content (eg India, Video game, and more)

• b:Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf

The only troublesome one IMO. It could maybe be added in a 'See also' at the end of the page?

Whatcha think? --Quiddity 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the footer template "more or less" match the article links on this page? Categories, "subtopics" and sister links could be left off, but that still leaves some timelines, categorical indices, and some sort of "concise" subject link to consider. How about making sure the page and footer template "match" both ways. The header template seems "incomplete" to me, based on what's linked from this page. The footer still could show more links, if they stay. Rfrisbie^talk 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"More or less" covers the whole gamut of options! ;P

Also, the footer bar frequently overlaps with {{List resources footer}}, which itself isn't included on any of the pages it lists.

I'm not quite sure what to suggest though. I think it's not needed, but am not positive on that. --Quiddity 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly!

The "List resources footer" pretty much looks like the header here, but it also has hundreds of transclusions. That says to me it's serving a useful purpose. These header/footer templates pretty much are relegated to this group of reference pages. Not worrying about the layouts, I like the approach taken by many "big" topics, like Hinduism. They use "concise" templates, like {{Hinduism small}} and "extensive" templates, like {{Hinduism}}. I like to think of the header/footer templates here in the same light, even if the footer doesn't get to the size of the Hinduism footer. I'm thinking that any page the has the footer template would have the "Contents page" layout design theme to tie them together. Clearly, this base page has more appropriate links than can fit on the header (on one line), so it makes sense to me the footer can be used for some sort of multi-line layout to match the contents here, effectively becomming the "Concise Wikipedia Table of Contents" discussed elsewhere. Rfrisbie^talk 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the footer on the lists was to tie them into the top level of the reference pages (now the contents pages) system. It seemed more appropriate as a footer than a header. --The Transhumanist 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow what you want to do from here. The header template is a subset of the footer template, which is a subset of this page. I'd like to see the header stay more or less the same and add any links to the footer, so it has all of the list and index links – making it that "Concise Wikipedia Table of Contents." Rfrisbie^talk 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the {{List resources footer}}, not the reference footer. The footer that is on pages the next level down from these reference pages (primarily the basic topics lists and the topics lists), etc. --The Transhumanist 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but those ~150 transclusions of {{List resources footer}} were almost all added by Transhumanist, who tends to get carried away with adding navbars to pages (and knows it!). It could conceivably be added to every page that begins "List of ...", or even just any page 2degrees away from Wikipedia:Contents; but I dislike those options for many reasons.

I can't see it mentioned specifically at Wikipedia:Navigational templates, but offhand, I believe navbars are only meant to be included on pages that they contain links for.

The mis-application of navbars was the original reason I suggested what led to the sidebar redesign.

I (hesitantly) believe both these footer templates should essentially be deleted. I'm still not sure about the List resources footer. --Quiddity 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion for turning {{Reference pages (footer box)}} into a concise version of Wikipedia:Contents seems reasonable. --Quiddity 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree the practice generally is to keep navigation templates to their own linked pages. "See also" would be the way to add links to other pages, if the article doesn't already do so. Can we try out expanding the references footer to be a concise toc of this page? Rfrisbie^talk 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can try anything :) --Quiddity 05:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The exception of course are sets of pages which are too large to fit on the navbar. The portals all have a navbox, and they aren't included on it. They are one-level down from the links included in their nav tool. The same principle applies to the list resources footer. --The Transhumanist 11:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

H2 heading size as the standard for contents page titles?

I'm inclined to think that all the titles at the tops of the pages should match in size, but if the concensus is variety, I can live with that too. I'm going to change them all to H2 size (175%) (150%), which is the current size of this page's top header title, but feel free to change them again if you don't agree. --The Transhumanist 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See Page layout style for my recommendations for the layout style of these pages. I've made changes to this, Lists of basic topics, List of academic disciplines, and Wikipedia:Quick index along these lines. Wikipedia:Community Portal uses H2 header titles, so I support that for all pages. Because CP puts intros in the header bar, I also did that here. Considering these pages range from nothing to multi-paragraph intros, I'm fine with putting intros under the TOC, where it exists. I also would like to have the remaining pages go with the general proposal, possibly adapting individual pages along variations on the theme. Rfrisbie^talk 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just going for a quick fix for now, bringing the pages closer together. I'll assist with further conversion as time allows. --The Transhumanist 22:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reply to #Page layout style, above. --The Transhumanist 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Level 3 or Level 2 headers

I believe all of the reference lists now have Level 3 headings, with the exception of Academic disciplines. For some reason, at least one of my browsers wasn't displaying the Level 2 line all the way across the page when an image was in the title. Now, it seems to be okay, but who knows? Does anyone else know of any H2 display problems with embedded images. Here's an example. [1] If it's not a problem, should we switch to H2 headings for the sections? If it's a yes, I'll go around and change them (eventually :-0). Rfrisbie^talk 19:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of them were using style="border-bottom:0" to remove the underline, could that have been it? I don't see the problem at the diff provided (but I don't have IE6 either, so it might have been that?) --Quiddity 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What I saw sometimes was just the text underlined, but the line did not extend to the right margin. I assumed the zero border was to get rid of the "underline." So the question remains, H2 or H3? Rfrisbie^talk 20:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, semantically they should be level 2, so yeah, feel free to change. :) --Quiddity 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• or · or – as seperators?

We also need to standardize on a list seperator/bullet. I'd prefer to go with the smaller bullet · as it's the least distracting and bulky, and is used throughout Wikipedia already (Main Page, Featured articles, etc). --Quiddity 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)