Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you're having troubles with a hatnote at the tope of the page, why don't you add it further down, in the See Also section, as with Exercise. This doesn't draw quite as much attention, but does help improve awareness of the outline system, and will probably be noticed by most editors interested in the topic. Also, since the link is less prominent, there should be fewer concerns over quality. I would also suggest adding a note on the Talk page - or perhaps a template to be placed with the Project boxes - to advertise the article's relevant outline and suggest editors contribute. For example:
This article has been flagged by WP:WPOOK as a central topic, and as such has an outline which can be found at Outline of topic. Please help contribute to this outline in order to increase coverage of this topic.
Creating a template with this (or similar) text and a variable link would make it easy for Project members to tag articles, and since many highly important topics would be included, awareness should rapidly improve. Making a template shouldn't be hard if you study some existing project boxes first - in fact, I would be happy to make one for you if you want.
I hope these suggestions help! If you need any more suggestions, let me know at my Talk page. strdst_grl(call me Stardust) 10:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've been placing the "main" links to outlines in the see also sections of the corresponding articles, including the one at Exercise#See also. :)
See the banner at the top of Talk:Exercise. We placed that banner at the top of all corresponding subject talk pages about 3 weeks ago. It's a template, so any improvements to it will show up on all the pages it is displayed on.
Your suggestions are reassuring. It's nice to see we're on the right track.
And yes, any other ideas you come up with, please keep firing 'em at me.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I was just wondering what you meant by "advanced wiki-tools" on the project page? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 23:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
WP:AWB (for automated batch work), WP:WikEd (a more powerful wiki-edit window), WP:LINKY (preloads pages into tabs for speeding up manual batch work), and Regex (programmable search/replace feature in AWB and m:User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex menu framework - the latter is an add-on to Wikipedia's standard edit window). Template substitution tricks (e.g., using nested templates). Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia. And other tricks and techniques. See also WP:OTS. And I encourage all our team members to get a WP:BOT account (2 have them so far). The Transhumanist 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have AWB access, and I also use WikEd. How do I get a bot accoutn without actually having a written bot to propose though? Also, what can I get started on with the tools I do have? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure I understand your question. AWB can be activated into a bot, so you don't have to write your own bot program. To get an AWB bot account requires writing a proposal, but that's easy if you know someone who has been through the process. The easiest way is to propose a bot for a standard task. Both Juliancolton and Thehelpfulone will be glad to help. In the meantime...
Ah, good, you use Firefox! I need you to install the WP:LINKY add-on (very easy). WikEd is twice as powerful when using Linky.
I also would like you to boost the power of the regular edit window. Go to "my preferences", click on "Gadgets", and activate the regex menu. You'll only see it when you have WikEd deactivated.
The next step is to enhance your account with some scripts. Go to WP:OTS#Super fast upgrade and follow the insructions there. It includes WikEd, so remove that part of the code from the copy/paste before you save. The Watchlist sorter is the main one we're after here, as it makes your watchlist much easier to use, by displaying results by namespace.
Let me know how this goes.
I'll be sending you your first (WikEd/Linky) task soon.
Re: your message to me about list notability (aka "list of things that are green" )edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, I had to take a little break as I was spending too much time on Wikipedia. I've decided to stay out of the list issue for the moment, as there is obviously something I'm missing. Plus I've let my personal opinions on what should be allowed on Wikipedia cloud my judgment somewhat.
As for Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge... wow! Had no idea that existed. But it really sort of pulls everything together and makes it much easier to find something if someone doesn't know precisely what they are looking for (or just wants to browse a topic without having to track down the 100 articles related to it). There should be a link to that on the main page. --Susan118talk 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree. But where on the main page would we put it? The Transhumanist 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
That handy "Welcome to Wikipedia" box on the top of the main page could be a good place. Or, maybe even a link on the sidebar, for people like me who tend to forget the main page exists half the time--Susan118talk 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the info on the outline project, sorry I didn't get to reply sooner, but my internet connection has been flaking out on me the last week or so. So I haven't gotten to look at everything, but I have to say I was fascinated that there is an Outline of chocolate. :) Actually that is a good example of why the outlines are useful. I might want to read about chocolate, but not realize there are actually 50 (OK, so I didn't actually count them) articles related to chocolate; for example I would never have thought to look up International Cocoa Initiative (not previously knowing it existed), but thanks to the outline I can see that and all the other articles related to chocolate. So yeah this is definitely something that would be useful to have on the main page.--Susan118talk 01:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Personally i never use them but i would say basically look you are trying to make it better and they are trying to make it worse. go ahead and make them and make the article better if you think it is appropriate go do it you are bound to get people who then say oh that is not wp this or wp that my view is always does this make the article better? if it does, make it better. Wikipedia is not finished and wikipedia is not perfect. We need people to make it BETTER. and if you think that makes it better, then good for you make it better. the deletionists will say oh it is not quite right or something who gives a shit it is the readers who matter does this make it better for them? SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
BTW I do not use any automated tools. I don't obkject to them and have thanked people who have cleaned up silly typos and that kind of stuff in my editing, just personally I edit more slowly and by hand and that kind of editing you cant give to AWB etc. As I say I dont object to them they are great for clearing up silly errors but they can't catch oh this is a pile of nonsense otheretc. SimonTrew (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Personalli i find the hardest thing is doing the references i did over a hundred on Electric Car it is sodding hard work to find the things. THe article may be easy to sort but so many people dont put references or they put them badly or whatever and wow that was hard. I got two compliments from that. Then you would think after having over a hundred references in the article other editors might follow the style (as WP:MOS recommends) nah they just chuck anything in.
I am moving in a few days but have mobile broadband it is cool so I should be around but if I am not don't think I am ignoring you just you know moving and stuff takes a bit of time. SimonTrew (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the comments. WP:LINKY speeds up manual editing by loading subwindows (tabs) with the pages you want to view or work on. Then you switch between or blast through (work on then close) tabs. I'll post you an example of the types of manual editing the outlines need, sometime after your move.
And I agree that finding references is one of the hardest steps in developing articles. The Transhumanist 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think that your statement, "since we need the best linking we can to attract readers and editors in the first place", indicates a fundamental problem. Looking at hatnotes as a way to attract readers and editors is contrary to how I see a hatnote working. A hatnote should grab someone's attention when they first hit an article to help them find exactly what they are looking for (diambiguation being the primary purpose). Hatnotes within sections (see also, main, etc.) help the reader find more information about the specific topic. The outlines don't do that. They help readers find more information about related topics. Therefore, a hatnote is not the ideal place to include the links. I think they should regularly appear in the "See also" section of the article. If there is enough acceptance, perhaps a template similar to the Wikimedia Commons or Portal tags would be acceptable. Otherwise, just a regular link in the See also section is enough. I think if we try too hard to push this thing down people's throats, it will hurt the project. People need to see it in a regular place. They will click through, find the outlines, and learn that they are useful. We don't need to bash them over the head with them and turn people off to them before they even click through. Just my thoughts. Remember that it should always be about what's best for visitors/readers, not what's best for WikiProject members. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
It seems counter-intuitive to have the table of contents for the subject's coverage on Wikipedia at the end of the article named for the subject. But placing it in the see also section appears to be the consensus for now, so that's what we're doing. Thank you for the input. The Transhumanist 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see both sides of the argument. I think you should list (not hatnote) the outline on the disambiguation page. Then, add a link in the "see also" section of the article. What do you think? at-210discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The consensus seems to be not to place a hatnote until the outline quality is high enough. In the meantime, the see also section will do. I hadn't thought of the disambiguation page though. Good idea. The Transhumanist 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you have to clear your cache. -- penubag (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it's done! I'm about to be logged off today, but will post a note to the others the next time I log on. Let's see what the gang thinks. :) The Transhumanist 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've spent some time on a mock-up version of our new user-friendly OOK page!! This page is intended for new users who will become recruited and need to know what's what. Our existing pages seemed too much to read to too hard to understand. This isn't intended to replace any of the other pages but I believe will be essential in welcoming and inviting new participants. The lack of a central page really disorganized, confused, and deswayed users so this should help clarify. But it still needs a lot more work. I don't like how I presented the links, because we have more of them, and we'll need to organize them. At least it's a starting ground. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Outreach/draft -- penubag (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've merged (and redirected) your draft into the main WikiProject page. (WP:WPOOK).
Feel free to organize it as you see fit (including moving stuff to subpages or whatever you have in mind).
No. The History of California became so long that it was split into several articles and only links to those articles remain at History of California. Hopefully, the article will be expanded to include a synopsis of the History of California (probably by someone like me.) I recommend that we retain the article so that it can become that synopsis. --Buaidh (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good work my friend I don't think there is much wrong with it but it is helpful to post something on it a little gif or png doesnt matter what format so people can add it to their own user pages. Acually GIF is probably best avoided it is owned by um AOL I think (you know how these things change handsI think it is AOL at the moment) and they protect their rights to the format very vigorously. SimonTrew (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hate edit conflicts on wp they are so hard to sort out. I was just trying to say you might want to think about making a badge you know that people can put on their own pages and usually you make a template to let them add that easily. Also I think GIF is still proprietary to AOL and you may wish to use a different format it is not free to use (stupid I know). SimonTrew (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
GIF is not owned by AOL and never was, in fact, all patents have expired. Wikimedia only allows free file formats and GIF is the only file format on Wikipedia capable of animation (besides aPNG, but the majority of browsers cannot render that). If Wikimedia also alowed proprietary file formats, I'd go wild with SWF (flash). -- penubag (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think this version of the banner is a good one to start with. I'll give it the go ahead. So when can we start advertising the banner? Burningview (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay!, the banner's live now! If you view Template:Wikipedia ads , there will be a 1 in 184 chance you'll see WP:OOK! :) -- penubag (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ive found on the OOK portal that some of the branches of philosophy are missing, and they have no outlines currently. I'm adding the remaining ones and i'm going to see about starting a few of these outlines. Burningview (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ive took the liberty in creating the article Outline of Christianity. Islam is the only outline started out of all the religions. I'm going to be working on these religion outlines my friend. Burningview (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
What's your opinion of the outline so far? Ive been working on it for a couple of hours now. Love it if someone could help me improve it more. Burningview (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Im confused about where to put the movements in christianity such as restorationismCharismatic movement. Do you suggest putting restorationism under protestantism or making it seperate. Your doing a great job with the outline by the way. Burningview (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the situation on the outlines for using non-free use images of Coats of Arms, it's just that I noticed there are a lot without images. Can they be used or not? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it falls under fair use. The coats of arms are legitimately used under the articles for their respective countries, and outlines have the same scope as their corresponding articles. "Outline of" just means the type of page, while the subject is the same as for the article. The problem is there is a bot set up that automatically removes those images from all pages except the subject article. It has been slowly but surely removing them from the outlines. To fix this problem, we'll have to take it to WP:BOTS and failing that, WP:COPYRIGHT or WP:VPP. The Transhumanist 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you so much for the barnstar, I appreciate it! It means a lot coming from you, but you are much more deserving of one!
As for the water, I chose that because I've had problem finding the proper article myself. I was doing a chemistry assignment and the regular Water article wasn't as comprehensive as Water (properties). But then I found out we even had articles on Water_(data_page) and Color of water, which would have been very helpful had I known they existed.
But we also don't have an outline for water, so it may be better to demo a well developed outline. If you have any good ideas, just go ahead and change it as you see fit. -- penubag (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
That sheds light on your perspective... Hatnotes can be easily missed, while an outline formally presents the links in context to the subject of the outline. Makes sense.
We don't have an outline on water (yet). But Outline of chocolate is approaching completion, and we're almost due for another collaboration. :)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You've done a lot of great work here but one thing with these outlines or whatever you cvall them,I like my wikipedia plain and have great trouble navigating it with all the colours and buttons seem to go missing etc. It is perhaps just me but I like just to be able to read an article without all that flashy stuff. I don't know how to sort that cos the aim of your project is admeirable and you have worked really hard on it, and that is great, I just find it personally very hard to navigate with all this stuff in the way. Please take this simply as constructive criticism you have worked very hard on an admirable effort to try to pull stuff together and I think after the usual grumbles you will succeed and make wikipedia better I just dont like stuff kinda shoved in front of my face.
Which pages are you talking about?
I think I am allowed to do this on a talk page as for water I am a molecular modelling scientist for a company called www.accelrys.com. You will find stacks of free stuff on the website. Obviously I can't put that on a main page but I think I am allowed to mention it on a talk page, if not please excuse me. You can download our 3d molecular modelling software for free, well you are not stupid so easier just to let you do browse it and decide if it is of any use to you. There is also a famous article (not I think on WP, at least not yet) about dihydrogen oxide ie H20 which shows that it is lethal, causes drowning if inhaled, is found in all kinds of poisonous chemicals, is used by the US navy in vast quantities, is a major component of acid rain, etc etc try to find a ref to it maybe. I am gonna try find it now but I better save this message first as I drop a lot. SimonTrew (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
No wonder I couldn't find it, it should just be dihydrogen oxide you only use mono- kinda to distinguish if there are others (as far as I know there are no others there are heavy hydrogens etch but not like two oxygens stuck to two hydrogens). Not that this is your problem I guess but I dislike it being called a hoax (and WP:MOS somewhere or other that I am too tired to look up has mention of what is or is not a hoax) I think it is a bad title. Like It WAS published (if not by this or that person etc) IS largely true and so IS NOT essentially a hoax. The hoax would be kinda a meta-artcle ABOUT that publication, not the publication itself. I think it is kinda odd to call it a hoax
Does that mean that you want all the articles in the brackets to have {{main|Outline of computer science}} or what? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, it means that portion of the OOK page is in the wrong tree structure format. :) Parenthetical. These outlines used to be just "structured lists", and the conversion to outline format isn't complete yet.
Thank you for pointing that out.
I've fixed it. (Sort of)
By the way, {{main}} shouldn't be at the top of the outline pages, because the topic link is usually at the very beginning of the lead paragraph. See WP:OVERLINK. (Though it seemed like a good idea at the time).
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am not sure whether I am making this right or not, so I haven't done that much progress could you or someone in the project take a look at it and give me some feedback, so I will know if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks, Vivio TestarossaTalk 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to help. Though I won't be on much over the next few days.
We generally don't linkify headings - it's one of the guidelines in the Manual of Style. See WP:HEAD. Links in headings cause accessibility problems for some users.
Instead of a contest that requires tracking each edit for each editor, how about an outlining contest that would run similar to the Featured Lists process, except with our own judges? We would have teams (maybe from specific Wikiprojects) make outlines in their subject area and submit them for review after a certain amount of time, which would be reviewed on quality and/or quantity. This would get rid of problems like time zone differences and having to track each edit. One possible problem is that the subject areas are so different from each other it may be unfair if teams tackle easier topics to outline. (and how do we determine what's easier or fairly judge between different subjects?) One solution could be to have Wikiprojects of similar subjects compete. For example we can have Wikiproject Chemisty vs Wikiproject Physics, or even Wikiproject .NET vs Wikiproject C++. After that, we would judge the outlines they've completed (maybe with the help of Wikiproject Science for the former) and award the winning team medals and a trinket for their project page. There are endless possibilities.
I'm not sure what's been come up with yet, but this is just an idea that occurred to me a while ago, maybe we'll incorporate some ideas here.-- penubag (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but if this is going to be big, it needs its own page. I'll work on it and get back to you. What I have right above will be the basis of the contest. Would you like to comment or edit the page later? -- penubag (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Just to say, I would be happy to start placing these on pages that haven't got them and the reverse on the corresponding outline. I've got nothing to do now I've finished all my projects!
Is there anything I should know about how to do them before I start?, I noticed some pages have a hidden notice on them: <!-- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE as it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for this subject's coverage across Wikipedia. Thank you.-->. Do they have to be at the top, eg. Japan, or see also, eg. Abkhazia?
might look wrong, it's not really the main article, that's the Germany article itself. Would a see also link be more appropriate?
Pps. I'll start on the countries then move through the other main topics, it should be quick just posting links on each. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was overruled 2 to 1, here. Nobody else showed up for the discussion, and I of course couldn't (and didn't) invite them, because that would be canvassing. Therefore, the consensus is no hatnotes at the top of articles leading to the corresponding outlines, per WP:RELATED. That includes the {{main}} template.
Now you know why watching is so important.
Note that we did not discuss hatnotes at the top of outline pages, though {{main}} is redundant there, since the main article is linked to at the beginning of the lead paragraph, in most cases. And so {{main}} should be removed from the top of the outlines, because it is a form of overlinking. See WP:OVERLINK.
The consensus currently is to place the link in the See also section, which is where links to "related information" goes. And since the outline is the main article containing related information, we can use the {{main}} template down there in the see also section. And so far, nobody has complained.
Then what's the task?
There are two:
Task #1: place {{main}} at the top of the "See also" section, in the following way:edit
Place {{main|Outline of x}} at the top of the see also section of the article corresponding to the outline. (With some help), I've created a template to help with this. Instead of placing the above code and typing in the subject manually, paste in this:
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox47}}
That will place the subject name automatically, and will adjust it for most cases of "the" and plurals (such as Outline of the Cocos Islands, and Outline of ants).
Task #2: remove {{main}} from the top of all of the outlines (including the drafts)edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sure you have it watchlisted, but I have considered your request and joined the WP:WPOOK as its 24th member :). I think I'll be completely done with the forestry outline within the next 10 days or so. I don't believe I'm as knowledgable in any other one outlinable subject, but could contribute substantially across a lot of related or semi-related topics (in particular I'm intrigued by research). If you have anything specific in mind, let me know and I will be more than willing to contribute. Minnecologies (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I familiarized myself with the OOK structure and policies when the WPOOK template was put on the forestry outline talk page, so I believe I have a pretty good idea of how everything works. I am also quite inclined towards making lists (see my masterpieces here and here), so I've read through all the guidelines pertaining to that. For now I could oversight and watchlist everything, but as the project picks up steam I would like to concentrate on the science outlines, perhaps even making a guideline for how they're to be developed? For now I think I will get started on the merges. Minnecologies (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Posting this to the see also section = bad. That's because we are pushing for this to be added to the tops of pages, and it will detract from this effort if they are already in the see also section, because then there will be 2 copies of it on each page. I don't think other editors will let that stand, do you?
By the way, to add the page names to {{main}} automatically, use this:
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox46}}
That places {{main|Outline of x}}, and fills in the "x" automatically.
Well it's just that I've already had 1 revert and 1 seperate complaint about using the {{main}} template Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, I've done a few already so I'll change the ones I've done and start proper tomorrow Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually I've been given, by a very kind editor, a list of codes in the form of {{Main|Outline of Canada}} but he/she has already filled all the gaps in for all the geography related articles, their on my sandbox which you can find via my userpage Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I removed the subst tags from User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox47 and it now works – I think it's something to do with the way substing the parser functions works. Perhaps you could move that code to a template (something like {{outline}}) and then transclude it on articles without using subst. haz(talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi The Transhumanist,
Unfortunately I have been unable to do this task as I simply haven't had the spare time for the job! I'm going for a wikibreak in a few weeks too, therefore I think I'm going to have to postpone this task until I come back from the break!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm happy to announce that it is now 100% complete!! As being complete, the old project page's material has been fully integrated into this one. You can always view the original at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/old page. Let me know what you think. -- penubag (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You asked on my page "what are you plans for these?" just at a time when I'm feeling myself overwhelmed by all the different wiki-pies I've got my big fingers into....as you know I've updated/amended that page quite a bit and will try to do some more; one time-issue for me is in the course of repairing/expanding/honing it I wind up spending time on lists and articles linked and/or associated research and it's like a tree that just keeps on growing, and there remain complexities/issues with the structure/content that I'm avoiding for now, pending input from certain other editors (e.g. re the Law section, from a Wikipedian who I know is a lawyer...).
I'm not prepared to take on any more work, e.g. on teh other provinces - all of which are structured differently than British Columbia is, by quite a bit in each case (especially Quebec) and in each jurisdiction there are different structural/categorization issues that I'm not going to begin to explain here; I'm in Nova Scotia right now and don't know much about the place and there's no outline started and I'm not sure I'd want to get involved....I'm trying to have a real life outside Wikipedia and it's taking up more and more of my time....I can advise on the other provinces, when they come around, if I'm still around (and I may not be), but I can't really help much with Saskatchewan because I've only ever driven through the place (without stopping, except for coffee/donuts).
One shortcut I've begun to use in completing the BC Outline, also, is to link categories if there is no relevant article or list; and I think linking categories in the Outlines is superior to linking lists, as lists need to be manually updated whereas categories are self-updating; when there are articles, e.g. Land districts of British Columbia I've linked those; when there are layers upon layers of subcategories I won't, so Landforms of British Columbia I won't link to Category:Landforms of British Columbia but will have to try and create, or begin creating List of landforms of British Columbia (hierarchical, and not alphabetical). Alphabetical lists like List of British Columbia-related topics I find completely pointless, and also if fully complete would be MASSIVE; it's why List of British Columbia rivers is arranged hierarchically, i.e. according to the tributary tree.
Anyway these are just some thoughts; I'd meant to reply to you but have been mulling my reply as well as mulling over how I can retreat from Wikipedia to get on with my life, which takes just as much energy and creativity and in fact needs me to focus my energy and creativity on less mundane/pragmatic matters (I'm a musician/composer/songwriter in search of a career and a living...which I don't have at present...).
Indulging in cataloguing exercises is not really how I came here or what I'd prefer to spend my wiki-time doing; I rarely write anything but stub-content lately, but I started in here as an historian and know there's various articles that I'd like to finish contributing to before....disappearing from Wikipedia at some point.
I'll try and finish the BC Outline as much as I can before that time - I'm one of the few BC Wikipedians with the broad knowledge/expertise about the place to be able to do so - but I really have no room to work on other outlines, which means coming to terms with how all the other provinces are structured.....and lots more work unrelated to my core interests and also unrelated to my personal future, or personal ambitions anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. First things first: take a deep breath. A really deep breath. Deeper. Deeper. Hold it. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... Longer... Longer...
Now exhale. Aaaaaaah.
Now repeat that 10 times.
(A few minutes later)...
Relaxing, isn't it?
Remember, moderation in all things. Including moderation. :) (We all need the occasional binge).
Keep in mind that it's better for Wikipedia if you work on this encyclopedia slowly and steadily, rather than in one mad rush followed by burnout. As you get older, you'll get wiser (hopefully we all will), and Wikipedia will benefit - but only if you're still here!
If you are addicted, there's only one cure: an immediate wikibreak. Return only when you are able to keep it rational. You need to focus on what's truly important to you...
Work on your career and family life. Those come first. And when you are ready, spend a few minutes on Wikipedia each evening if you can, or a few hours on weekends. Keep it within the spare time you can truly afford to spend on it, that is, without sacrificing more important things.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the tips! I will gladly join the Wiki Project. . . I'll add my name to the list just after sending this to you! Mnation2 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'm not aware of any specific guidance. Personally, I add {{maincat}} whenever it is the only appropriate choice (usually as a sub-section hatnote, e.g. Lists of films#Filmographies), but it has less than 100 uses currently, so is obviously not considered a standard, yet. Rarely, I'll add a link to a category from a SeeAlso section. I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories or Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for more input, before applying it widely. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I'd agree with you that the category links (eg in Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia) should not be piped. However, I have no objections to linking categories, rather than creating new and plain lists of those categories (partially depending on whether the category is in a "complete" or "still growing" state, I guess).
Perhaps we could meld redlinks with category links somehow, such as, replace the piped link to Lakes of British Columbia, with this line:
That way the editor with no time/interest in creating a new stub-list can still help everyone (readers and editors) by pointing in the right direction...
Other than that, I'd ask someone who knows more about categories for input.
Oh, I also keep wondering about more potential uses for {{Category tree}} (or mw:categorytree). E.g. they work great in {{Infoboxwatch}}. I've been meaning to experiment with more of those, somewhere... -- Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
eh, that kinda feel apart, primarily due to my cluelessness around technical stuff. I could use AWB to deliver the newsletters though. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
For your first request, make it for newsletter delivery, for the WP:WPOOK and for others upon request. That should go through without a hitch. There's a place on the standard form to indicate that you'll be using AWB.
(Once you have your initial approval, it is even easier to get new tasks approved for it. But we'll deal with that later).
Send me links as you go through the process, so that I can comment if needed.
P.S.: while waiting for bot approval, you can still use AWB manually. But you'll enjoy it much more if AWB is working in the background automatically while you are doing your thing on another window! They don't call it multi-tasking for nothing. :)
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I would like to request that instead of dumping full-length reports about OOK stuff, that you do like the Signpost and just link to articles within your user space. This would be better for the servers (less storage space required for duplicated talk messages), make my talk page look a whole lot less cluttered (I'm literally losing messages tucked in between your updates), and it will make me take the project more seriously (as it is, I'm starting to get irritated every time I see a new message indicated and then another lengthy "spew" from you). I believe the OOK is important, but it's actually pretty low down on my priority list for my limited on-wiki editing time. Yet, my talk page is filled with OOK stuff. I do check the Signpost every week when it's updated. I think it's reasonable to expect that WP:OOK folks can remember to do that. If not a Signpost-style notification, then how about just a small blurb like some of the WikiProjects do for their newsletters? It still triggers a new message notification, but it's compact enough to not be annoying. Or give people a choice.
I don't mean to be rude or disheartening, but please remember that you asked me for my advice. So, here is my advice for how to not fill my (and others') talk page with copious amounts of text that is starting to feel a bit spammy. Save the talk page announcements for highly time-sensitive announcements like you did originally, not routine updates. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 00:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the advice. Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. I'll send you a link in the future. And I'll add a P.S. to future postings to provide that option to other recipients. Again, thank you.
Re: the new projectpage, the header takes up 1/3 of my screen. Can we lose the text-as-graphic altogether? More when I get back from dinner.. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've reduced the amount of whitespace in the header and should be much smaller. -- penubag (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The text as a graphic logo is still quite large and overwhelming. Also, it doesn't scale well or look good printed out at low resolution in B&W. I'd prefer to see it in regular text, using CSS styles to generate a similar (though not quite so large) result.
As to the rest of the page, it is pretty good. Instead of "Why W needs Outlines", I think if the entire paragraph was reworded to answer the question, "How does the Outline of Knowledge help me?", or, "How do outlines help me?", it would pack a better punch. Only established editors who have invested time and effort are likely to care much about how something helps Wikipedia. On the other hand, nearly everyone cares about how something can help them. Also, be sure to continue to sell the benefits ("Selling the sizzle of the steak" in marketing phraseology) in the rewrite. Benefits are listed, currently, but it might be even more effective to restyle that into a bulleted list with the first word of phrase being a bolded benefit followed by a brief explanation or additional details. Bulleted lists are faster and friendlier to read and mentally absorb. Large paragraphs of text are often skipped over unless the headline really grabs the reader (which the revised question might, but why risk it?). These suggestions are established design and marketing principles that apply in any place where you are trying to capture a reader's attention and get them to take action (i.e., to become involved with the project in this case). The use of bulleted lists below the first two paragraphs is good, and probably partly what makes the first two paragraphs look blocky and dark to read (not enough white space). You've got good meat on the page, but now it needs the sizzle brought out a bit more to make it as effective as possible. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your feedback. I suppose at this point it's all a matter of preference. I think increasing whitespace makes the page look more bulky and large, rather than trim, neat, and userfriendly. Also, the bulleted explanations at the top are good at a glance but don't sustain as much to the debates against outlines. -- penubag (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would also appreciate it if you posted links to announcements on my page, rather than something like this. In my own opinion, that is simply too long for a WikiProject update concerning something that I'm not even that involved in. Don't get me wrong: I like to read the updates, but they simply take up too much room. Think about it: what would it be like it the Singpost gave you this every week instead of this? My regards, TheEarwig(Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it is overwheming, which in practice means I do not add to this project at all because I can't see the meat for the potatoes. Of course it is good that WP has editors with many different styles and manner of editing, but for myself I tend to make lots of small, incremental edits and if someone asks me to edit an entire long article it can take me at least a week to do it, by twhich time another drop of "spam" has already come into my talk page. I am qiute omnivorous and take on all kinds of subjects and reasons for editing-- anything from Latin translations to the history of railway lines to Newmarket, Suffolk to Caramel color or Electric cars or almost anything else that happens to link to a link to a link to something I once edited, but it can kinda seem sometimes like OOK is the only or most important thing on WP. I am sure it is not intended to seem like that, but yes, overwhelming amounts of information mean I spend more time editing my talk page than actually editing articles. This is of course all in good faith.
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello
First of all I have to say it is a great work what you are doing on wikipedia, realy.
Would you please check this website ( humansfuture.org ), it is a scientific, informative and well made site.
Long time ago it was spammed by some ignorant member and then was blacklisted by some wikipedia adminstrators here.
I tried to convince them to unblock the site to give it a chance to be used on wikipedia as a good source of information but they dont see the value of it, maybe beacuse it is not their field of interest or speciality.
Please I need you to help me and to support my proposal here to get the website unblocked.
I like the website. It is informative, and after a quick skim, it appears to coincide with what I know about the subject.
However, the site does not have a reputation for fact-checking, probably because they do not provide references for the information presented on its pages. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source.
Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources to offset the problems caused by being an open source encyclopedia subject to being edited by anybody. Wikipedia's articles are only as good as their verifiability. Citations are the primary method through which Wikipedia provides verification. And cited sources are only as good as their sources.
If the website were to include its references as inline citations, and those references checked out, then I'm sure it would be accepted as a reliable source.
The website is not just scientific, actually it is more speculative in nature so how can references be provided for such a type of speculative articles ?
I have already mentioned in my proposal that these articles were written by famous writers and futurists including John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom.
Also there are more than 1800 pages linking back to the website including big trusted sites like about.com
We are not asking the wikipedians to link to the website now, we just want it to be at least unblocked to make it possible for the website to be used someday on wikipedia in a good way, thats all.
I've replied at your proposal. Basically, if you provide sufficient evidence that the website is a reliable source and that the authored articles are authentic, it should be removed from the spam blacklist. The Transhumanist 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
By the way, there's an image of a man in a bubble on the website's main page. Is that supposed to be a representation of men in the future? There's something rather significant missing! The Transhumanist 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Transhumanist, I was not paying good attention when you asked your questions.
Please check the answers at my proposal and thank you for your guidance and support there.
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I've replied above to Willsc. above about it. I don't think the bullets are as concise as the explanations nor hold as well against debates. Maybe we need a hybrid? Also, the volunteer section should be working and fully aligned now. (just bypass your cache).
I will work on the contest section now. But before I do that, the contest is going to be a Wikiproject vs. Wikiproject thing/"subject representatives" contest right? I need a bit more info before can I construct the rest of the contest and the page.-- penubag (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm very happy that we're pulling you deeper into the project. :) Exhilarating, isn't it?
I anticipate that the OOK will grow exponentially, and so we've got to make the core pages good as we can make them, to minimize confusion and conflict as people join in on the effort to build the OOK. Once these are completed, we can begin posting notices and invites concerning outlines for eligible subjects that don't have them yet (thousands).
I've added a link at the top of the project page to WP:OUTLINE, the key page about building outlines.
I have bigger plans for your paragraphs. They need to be picked apart, condensed, and adapted/rewritten for inclusion on About Wikipedia (accessible from every page on Wikipedia), on Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (a critical guideline that is seriously out-of-date), Wikipedia:Basic navigation (a key page of the help system). The OOK also needs some tips added to the WP:TOTD and Tips library, and one or more of those need to describe the OOK.
re: contest
The WikiProject angle isn't looking so good. Many of the wikiprojects have cobwebs. :( We will certainly post notices to every relevant WikiProject, and to all their members. But I think the focus will be on country outline vs. country outline. Contestants will team up by jumping on the outline they want to work on, and the judges will pick the best outline. The editors of the winning outlines (1st through 5th?) will get awards, and an award and/or award announcement will be posted on the talk pages of the winning outlines, and on the WikiProjects corresponding to those outlines.
Yup, so far I have to say OOK is a lot of fun, and now makes up all my time on Wikipedia. Since you have a better grasp on the project, I'll let you decide what's best for the wpook intro. As for the contest, we're focusing on country outlines only? I thought they were more complete than the rest. Well, when that phase is over, I'm thinking we have one subject area compete against themselves at a time. Like for example, one month we'll host the Physical sciences contest where each subject branch could be a team. Physics team vs Chemistry team vs Astronomy team etc could become a scenario. We would of course go to the wikiproject and ask which contestants are up for it. How would that sound? What should I base the page layout on? -- penubag (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also replied on my talk about the volunteer section with a screenshot. -- penubag (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The first contest should be on country outlines. Because of their sheer number and each outline's scope (a whole country!), finishing these is a colossal project in its own right, and will require the most editors by far. We have the award pics ready and waiting (which we invested a lot of time and effort into). And our outline development priority is to complete as many outlines as possible as soon as possible, to provide a strong example of quality for others to strive for.
The geography section represents almost half the outlines. If we can handle that, we can handle all the rest in a single contest. This would make a bigger splash and take less time. Then we could shift focus to creating new outlines, and run a contest for developing their drafts. The Transhumanist 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Here's a draft, tell me what you think:
To Whom it May Concern,
A while ago, I was asked by a user to join Wikiproject Outline of Knowledge, a project which he coordinates. However, the index of outlines is a little hard to find for the newcomer. Therefore, I request that a link of this page be added to the 'portals' section of the main page.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact The Transhumanist or myself
Thank you, Tarheel95 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nice first try. Read Willscrlt's paragraph above about "Selling the sizzle of the steak". The same principle applies here.
The proposal should focus on the benefits to the readers of Wikipedia, not its editors or WikiProjects. It's all about the readers.
Without asking the questions, the proposal should clearly answer "Why should the Outline of Knowledge have a link on the Main Page? How would that benefit readers?"
The proposal should also be precise as to exactly where the link will go, and show what the Main Page will look like with the change.
For that you'll need to make a mock up of the Main Page with the new link on it. That's fairly easy. Copy the source text of the main page to User:Tarheel95/Main Page with OOK link, and start editing. Then take a screen shot of it and include the screen shot in your proposal.
One thing the main page people probably won't go for is anything that pushes the rest of the page down the screen. Getting the header as small as possible was a major issue in the Main Page's design effort, and I doubt sentiments have changed on that point.
By the way, there's no need for the formal introduction ("To Whom it May Concern"). You'll just be posting the proposal as a regular message on the Main Page's talk page. It's a pretty casual hang out. You should spend some time on there before you make your proposal, to get a feel for it.
P.S.: Penubag is our project's graphics and page-layout expert, and I'm pretty handy with page layout myself (I co-coordinated the design effort on the Main Page). Contact us if you run into any difficulties.
Question about outline quality and eligibility for hatnote placementedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Is there any outline currently that meets good article criteria? If not, my suggestion is that we should make that a priority. If we do then I think we should start a collaboration to get it up to featured status. We really need a featured outline. It would benefit our project tremendously. Burningview (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The people over at FLC don't understand outline standards, and outlines are so new that their standards are still under development. All the guidelines pertaining to lists that apply to outlines need to be updated, as do all the MOS guidelines pertaining to outlines. Otherwise, generic list guidelines will be applied to outlines at FLC, and on the OOK pages (which used to be called "Lists of basic topics" we've been doing things differently for years. Even if that were done, FLC has some standards above and beyond list guidelines that don't fit outlines. What is needed is a Feature Outlines department, and that's a long ways off. Patience is the best strategy for now. The Transhumanist 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
But if we can only put hat-notes for outlines that are as good as the pages, how do we define quality of outlines? --Stefantalk 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
For now, impression. If you feel equally or more impressed by an outline than you do by the subject article, then add a hatnote to the subject article. If the outline serves as an outline as well as the article serves as an article, that's pretty impressive. For example, compare:
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you have edited WP:Lists recently and you have a couple more years of experience than I do, so I am seeking your help/opinion on something I just noticed at List of marinas. Prevostcar (talk·contribs) contributed one 2h42m edit spree to the list adding external links beginning with
http://marinas.com/browse/marina/
for over 50 subsections of the list. I believe this violates WP:Lists and also WP:EL, but can't find an explicit prohibition, like "Do not add external links to lists articles". I am pretty certain these links need to be taken out of the list, but would appreciate your input and also any more explicitly prohibitive guidelines I can point to on this user's talk page explaining why these edits were not helpful. Since this is the only day the user has edited, it may also be a case of spamming. It also may have been done in good faith. I am surprised no one bothered to revert these edits but it's possible they were simply overlooked. Sswonk (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to help...
Lists are a type of article, and they must comply with article guidelines unless the list guidelines provide an exception. The guideline on external links applies to lists. Read the first sentence.
The situation you described is also a perfect example of link spam. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising websites.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi; I'm just here to thank you for the updates that you've been sending me lately, and also to tell you that I am more than happy to help out with the outline, though not directly, as I am too busy these days. However, if you still need my help, I'll do my best. Thanks again for the updates! I'm glad that everyone is doing so much to help out (and sorry that I can't do the same...=(. Oh well, keep up the good work!). Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 06:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Error: no page names specified (help). in comments?edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'n not sure what you mean, can you explain in simple-english terms? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 11:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Placing the "main" link in such a fashion is a superfluous task. What does it accomplish? How is placing an invisible non-functioning link better than waiting to place a real one?
We need to integrate the outlines into the encyclopedia. That is, link to them from articles so they are not orphans. This is our top priority, because outlines are of no use to readers if they don't know the outlines exist.
I placed the redlink ones as a hidden comment thing so that after the relevant outlines have been created they can be unhidden Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be better to leave them out.
By the way, I admire that you tried to figure out what to do with the redlinks. Trying out solutions is good.
And I'll try to be more specific in future tasks. 'Sorry about the vagueness of that one.
Yes, I know that the main shark page have quite high traffic, so we can never expect to get that high. I can think of a few ways of increasing hits to the outlines.
Link to them from the hatnote, I will do that in a few days and then see the difference in hits, but I expect it to be maybe even twice of today, but not sure, will have to wait and see.
Make the outline have more keywords that is used for searching, so that a not so specific google search might give the outline a high placement, while the actual page that the searcher is looking for is not as high since he/she does not know what to search for. Done
Link to outlines from as many places as possible, this will increase the google rank. In the Shark case this means that all shark species pages should link to the outline, this is more than 300 pages so it will take a while to do, I will add the more common as I go along.
Obviously put outlines on main page and to generally spread the awareness of outlines so that people start to see that they are useful and start using them and updating them so that they get useful.
If so, I found this and this and did what I though you (or someone else wanted), I added the template to the outlines listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outline_of_knowledge/get_to_work as Unfinished outlines. If that meant something else then I'm sorry. --Stefantalk 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
A hatnote is a message at the very top of a page. The hatnotes I was referring to were these, about the incompleteness of the page:Reply
It's unnecessary clutter. And it implies that someday we'll be able to say with authority when the list is complete. But we never will be able to, because it is a summary, and summaries are by definition incomplete: summaries don't include everything, which is why they're called "summaries".
OK, very confused, though YOU asked for a template like that and I did that, but nevermind. I cleared the text so it is now an invisible template, I have not removed it from the outlines that are beeing worked on, so the category still works. --Stefantalk 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I did? I don't remember. I think I need a wikibreak. :) The Transhumanist 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After months of working on it, I feel that the Outline of forestry has finally been completed, and is awaiting your review as is requested on the WP:OOK page. Minnecologies (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey! Check out the new tips (I corrected some and created some others)! What you think? By the way... I think you shoul use (if you desire so) a shoutbox! And I say that because I see your talk page is getting huge (comments like the previous one avobe can be placed inside it). - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's 2-levels deep (2 levels below the title). That qualifies as an outline. Though as a branch of OOK, it skips a couple intermediary branches (that is, they're missing): Outline of dermatology, which in turn is a branch of Outline of skin (but dermatology is also a branch of Outline of medicine, which we do have). And somewhere in there is Outline of disease.
By the way, why is it called "skin-related conditions" and not "skin conditions"?
I'm ambivalent. I'm a strong believer in outlining when it comes to writing or organising knowledge, but I tend to stray from my beliefs. I've been staring at the main T&T article for about 4 years now thinking "I need to re-write that", and I realised about a year ago that the best way to do that was from the bottom up - write the daughter articles first, and use them to organise the main article. And having come to that conclusion, I've been writing articles about plants :) Just looked at Outline of botany...wow, does that need work. And outline of ecology is as jumbled as the ecology article is. Maybe if I started with a good outline... :)
Oh, wait. Is that intentional? Outline of knowledge...librarian... ook! If that was intentional - I am truly impressed. And if it wasn't - then it's still the coolest (b)acronym ever, and you most definitely should claim that it was intentional. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember who used OOK first. We just got tired of writing "Outline of knowledge" all the time, and it's the obvious WP:shortcut. The Transhumanist 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
This outline is one of a set of outlines on every country of the world. They share a standard format to make comparison between countries easy. If you remove the country names from headings and links from all of these outlines, then it becomes very difficult to tell which country you are looking at, especially if you are switching back and forth between them or browsing many countries. For this reason, all the country outlines include the country's name in their subheadings. It's been this way since these pages were created over a year ago. The Transhumanist 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't quite agree with WP:MOSHEAD: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, 'Early life' is preferable to 'His early life' when 'His' means the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated." --Cybercobra (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it does agree with MOSHEAD, because it makes the pages clearer. The country outlines aren't regular articles, they're lists, designed to be used with other lists in which the sections and even the facts are presented in the same order. A typical method of comparing countries using these lists is to open two or more windows (or tabs), each displaying a different country, and then switch back and forth. Without the name prominently displayed throughout the material, it is very easy to get the countries confused. And when you're flipping through multiple windows, it's easier to see the subheadings than the smaller text between them.
Even if MOSHEAD didn't have the "clearer" exception, Wikipedia policy prominently provides one: WP:IGNORE. I believe that Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means sums it up the best: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit."
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It looks strange to have a hatnote for an article that doesn't exist yet. "Index of visual arts-related articles" is not in requested articles and nothing even links[7] to it yet. Is there a guideline that determines when an "index of" article should be created? --George100 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm very sorry, I feel so lame not being around...;). I didn't know It had come so far so fast!! Anything Big I can do? at-210discovered elements ∞ what am I? 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As suggested and requested, I've contacted the Indigenous peoples of North America & US military history wikiprojects for help on working on the American Indian Wars Outline (as well as all of the other American wars to the US military history). I also created this page in order to coordinate wikiproject outreach efforts- as I tried to explain in the intro it would be very advantageous for the WP:OOK to try to garner support and work from an outline's pertinent wikiproject or task force. Do with or link to at will. Minnecologies (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delay, I took a much needed break over the weekend; and today, I've been fighting a war all day.
I've been taking a slightly different approach. See Wikipedia:WikiProject France. But there's nothing wrong with having multiple approaches. Keep up the good work.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This is probably canvassing but I don't intend it to be, Dbachmann has been moving outlines such as Kosovo and Switzerland into the portal space from the mainspace, I have reverted these but what I actually thought you would be interested in is the 'vandalism' to Wikipedia:Outlines and Category:Outlines and his/her comments at Wikipedia talk:Outlines. As for the first 2, I don't feel confident reverting his/her edits and I wondered if you could. As for the third (almost certainly canvassing), I want to reply by countering the WP:CFORK argument, what reasons other than the obvious are there? Thank You. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also, I dare not revert the move of Outline of Kosovo for fear of getting into an edit war with Dbachmann or breaking the WP:3RR
Your contacting me was not unsolicited, and therefore not canvassing. It is well known that I wish to be contacted concerning outlines. But I will post statements on my user page and talk page making it even more clear. Also, bringing a problem to the attention of an administrator, WikiProject coordinator, or an experienced editor for help is not considered canvassing.
Never be afraid of reverting vandalism. WP:3RR does not apply to vandalism. But Dbachmann's edits, while being highly opinionated and bold, were not vandalism. However they were disruptive - see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Changes to guideline and policy pages. If he continues in this way, we'll need to bring the matter before WP:ANI.
Also, keep in mind that WP:3RR applies to edits on a single page. You can revert hundreds of times a day if the reverts are on different pages and they are legitimate reverts (that is, not vandalism).
To improve your ability and confidence in confrontations and discussions with opposing editors concerning outlines, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant guidelines, especially WP:LISTS, WP:STAND, WP:OUTLINE, and WP:CLN.
But even more important, you should be familiar with previous discussions (conflicts) related to outlines. They can be found at WP:OOKDISC.
FYI the matter was indeed brought to ANI, though it was malplaced and has already been closed. As your name is mentioned, I thought you should be advised. –xenotalk 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well, have you discussed it with the user who preformed the move? It's probably not a good idea for me to simply revert in this case. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You handled the Dbachmann situation very nicely. You were rational and diplomatic. You'll make a great administrator.
You don't know how much that means to me, in all aspects of Wikipedia I try to be civil and diplomatic and where possible make reasonable compromise. And by the way, I think you'd make an even better admin although I guess your too busy with us lot at WP:WPOOK at the moment.
As for your points and questions, I don't use Linky but I shall certainly have a look at the links you posted for me. Indeed I did find it problomatic reverting the moves, sorry about the copy-paste moves, I'll remember to get an admin next time. I also looked through the relevant policies and past discussions at the time and found them extremely useful in countering Dbachmann's arguments, especially the latter.
By the way, you don't need an admin to revert moves. You can move a page back to its original location as long as there's only a redirect there that points to the page you are moving.
Sometimes an editor will be tricky and find an excuse to edit the redirect (once there's more than a single edit in the edit history, you can't move a page over the page), and then you'll need an admin to make the move.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. I'm eager to help with regards to OOK, but I'm not entirely sure where I should start and where I should contribute. I've read through the main pages but I'm not sure what is appropriate for inclusion in an outline and indeed what is appropriate to make outlines for! Any help would be appreciated... -- QUANTUMZENO 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The best place to start is with small standard edits to lots of outlines.
I have just the task for you...
In the sections listed at User:The Transhumanist/List of country outline government sections, check the "Form of government:" item. If it is empty, see if you can fill it in. The type of government is usually presented in the lead paragraph of Politics of x (where x is the country's name). A link to the "Politics of" article is included at the top of the section.
I've finished down through the I's. So start at Jamaica and work your way down the list.
You will find the above task much faster if you use Firefox and Linky. They're both free. Let me know when you have them installed.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Looking over the Country ones, I do find "The Arts in X" section titles to be a bit clunky. I would replace with either just "Art in X" or "Fine arts in X", something that gets rid of "the". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done - I've replaced the subheading with "Irreligion", and pulled the links in from the irreligion article's lead paragraph. Is that article's description accurate? The Transhumanist 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Much better. I removed deism though, as that's more a conception of God than an anti-religious or secular view. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Circling back to our earlier discussion, would you object to removing the duplication of the topic from the section titles of outlines like Outline of mathematics, Outline of chocolate, etc. that are unlikely to be compared to other outlines (compared to the country outlines)? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't know. We should do a test run on some of the drafts, and see if it affects usability. The Transhumanist 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
My reaction to the image was a vague cognitive dissonance. I'm happy you removed it. But where else is that image displayed? The Transhumanist 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I didn't remove it, it was another editor. I just happened to have edited the article prior to that edit and noticed it. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
It presented claims that were unsourced. Also, it had no linkage to corresponding articles on Wikipedia so that readers could follow the threads of interest. It also looked like a plug from a chocalate manufacturer (potential spam, probably the source of my cognitive dissonance: leaving it in when it seemed dubious). I hope somebody follows up on those claims for sources - I just don't have time. The Transhumanist 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The lead is a word-for-word transcription of the article's title, so of course it is on topic. Blacks and Africans includes all blacks and all inhabitants of Africa, respectively. And this is precisely why the list is up for deletion: it is way too broad and subjective. Perhaps deletion isn't such a bad thing either. What should have been created in the first place was two separate lists: one for Africans & one for blacks. This way, there would have been no opportunity for confusion as to which refers to what ex. whether the North African caliphates are "black" or just "African". Soupforone (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
actually, though I have been defending the article, I agree completely that it should be split in this manner, and for the reasons Soupforone gives. DGG (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Transhumanist. I'd like to be removed from your list of participants in the OOK editor group (and the "mailing list"). I'm focused on other things right now, and I'm not particularly interested at the moment. Thanks. Timmeh 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I haven't yet used Linky, as I've been using a friend's Internet connection (she uses IE) until now. I'm using my own now and I will see what I can do. --QUANTUMZENO 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. I know that Outline of anarchism has been "vetted/checked/endorsed" to a certain extent by User:Skomorokh who has a known expertise in the topic (has written a few GA articles concerning it). I was wondering if we had similar evidence that any of the other outlines we're using as "Best of" examples (specifically Outline of cell biology, Outline of forestry, Outline of Japan, and Outline of geography), have been checked/vetted by experts in the field being outlined? (reply here) Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't call who's checked an article any kind of evidence of an article's quality. See Argument to the person.
Instead, we need objective criteria of what constitutes outline quality, especially with respect to the accuracy of content. Of course, this brings us right to Wikipedia's core content policies, verifiability being the most relevant.
Regarding my specific question though: Should I take your answer as an implicit "No, I'm not aware of any other experts/wikiprojects as having checked/vetted/verified/sourced/referenced/endorsed these other outlines, that we use as "Best of" examples (and that appear to our amateur eyes to be [mostly] complete)" ?
(For context: I'm writing some notes on the outlines, for introducing the concept to people who may not be aware of them, or at least of how extensive they are. I'm trying to determine just how emphatically I/we can state that "These are the BEST examples"... ) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, you could compare them with course outlines on the same subjects. Or with the corresponding branches of the Dewey, LCC, and Propaedia. The TOCs of major textbooks in the relevant field would probably also bear some similarity. The Transhumanist 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I know what else they can be compared to, we've both written reams of information about that already in discussion, and the ookdir points to dozens more.
Thank you for replying, but, you still haven't answered my initial question! I'll take your reluctance to directly answer it as confirmation of my assumption above. Thanks anyway. I'll let you know if I stumble upon any evidence myself. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Take it as cognitive dissonance to your approach. My guess is that Minnecologies is schooled in forestry, though I doubt that qualifies him as an "expert". GA writing certainly doesn't quality an editor as an expert. Earthdirt is well-written on Wikipedia (see his user page), though I don't know if he has any GAs or FAs. My guess is he's well-schooled in the subject though. I don't know any (verified) experts on Wikipedia, since virtually all of them are anonymous (pseudonymed) and there is no easy way of checking their real life academic and scholarly achievements. My suggestion would be to visit the nearest university and see if you could get professors to assign their students to critiquing or developing these outlines as part of their coursework. :) The Transhumanist 23:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
My average is about 100 a day, but that includes many repetitive tasks with AWB, simple javascript assisted edits (like fixing caps in headers), and some vandal fighting with Huggle. RichFarmbrough, 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC).Reply
the meta-stub-history is a different file (10 G expands to 80) but there is a pagename file. Let me look. RichFarmbrough, 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have, as you requested, attempted to complete the government sections for the outlines begining with H plus a few more. However, some, such as the more obscure places and the sub-national entities, were very difficult, so I was wondering if you could look at them and see what else needs doing on them.
I know they are not done yet and I fully intend to continue with them but for most there is nothing to put in!
Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 13:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for working on these. I'll gladly take a look... The Transhumanist 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you can find the names for the various entities, add links to them, even if they turn red. Because of the way Wikipedia expands, they would probably turn blue eventually. The Transhumanist 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You've reverted my page move without discussion...while accusing me of moving the page without discussion. I at least made a note on the article's talk page, to no objection from anyone in over two weeks. Please discuss your reasons for the move at the talk page.
In addition, I find your use of fact tags rather selective and uncalled-for. For one, because the lead of an article often remains unreferenced for cosmetic reasons: the info in the lead should be repeated and expanded upon in the article, where it should be well-referenced, so the reference is not needed in the lead. For another, because you've placed fact tags next to my statements, while making unsourced statements of your own. Biogerontology, strictly speaking, is the study of the biological processes of aging. It is not necessarily "life extension." Indeed, to my knowledge, no biogerontologist has ever extended anyone's lifespan. Yet you equate "life extension" with "biogerontology" without any reference. I'm interested to hear your reasons for these edits. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I know you stress everyone to watch the ook pages but they're reluctant to do so because they don't want to clutter their watchlists. If they are told about the addon, SiteDelta, then they may change their minds. I've written a guide here User:Penubag/SiteDelta but it's not very good. Anyone can really find out how to use it on their own so it's not really a problem. What do you say? -- penubag (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Or go to WP:OOKRC and click on Related changes in Wikipedia's sidebar menu.
The tutorial is Done
But how do you load 1000 Wikipedia pages (plus their talk pages) into SiteDelta all at once?
Nice work on the tutorial, sorry I wasn't very comprehensive this time. Regarding questions, presently, there is no way to load a 1000 pages at once without visiting them individually. I'll ask the developer what he can do. To answer your Q on the talkpage, I've discussed a few issues with the developer which he fixed. The beta works fine, but the reason he doesn't upload this version onto the Firefox addons site is because he needs to contact the people he uses to translate SiteDelta. The new features only work in the English and German version and not the other languages which is why it's marked beta. -- penubag (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh and a quick random tip about proxies. If you type .6a.nl after the address domain (http://www.example.org.6a.nl/subpage), you should also bypass the filter. I've found this to be quicker than going to a proxy site to enter in the URL. One thing about this is that it doesn't have a 100% success rate but it's worth a try, also, this method has all the side effects of a proxy because it is one :) -- penubag (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your voice will probably be stronger to the developer than mine since I already asked so much. If he heard someone else, he may consider. Want to email him? email: sitedelta[at]schierla.de -- penubag (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, we have a pretty major problem with this page, in that it is transcluding the whole of a list, including its non-free content. Regardless of the merits of transcluding the whole list, this use of non-free content outside of the article space is not acceptable- would it be possible to amend the template so that it does not show the non-free images? J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Done - Inclusion tags are cool:
<onlyinclude>portion of page</onlyinclude> transcludes only the portion of the page between the tags, and no other part of the page.
<includeonly>portion of page</includeonly> hides a portion of the page itself, but displays that portion when the page is transcluded (that is, only when the page is transcluded).
<noinclude>portion of page</noinclude> disallows a portion of the page from being transcluded. It shows up on the page itself, but it won't be displayed in transclusions.
For each of the above, "portion of page" can be as much or as little of the page as you want. Whatever is between the tags.
The includeonly and noinclude tags can be nested within includeonly tags.
Of course, none of this will make any sense unless you know what "transclusion" is. ;)
So you've gone through the articles and added noinclude around each of the non-free images? Or have I misunderstood? J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, I thought you were referring to today's entry only. I fixed that. Sorry for the confusion. Good luck with the rest. The Transhumanist 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, yeah, that's the thing. The use of this template in this manner leads to obvious problems, because so many featured lists have NFC. There's gonna need to be a wider scale solution. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
All you need to do is join the department, and edit one list per day, so the images don't show up on the template. (Tomorrow is almost here!) In case you have an emergency, you should do a few days in advance. That approach is not much different than the preparation of the subpages for the WP:POTD department. Or you could prepare subpages, like in POTD - I did that for a few months, until someone was willing to take over for me. Or you could form a team, and change all the lists for the upcoming year. I did that for the WP:TOTD project - the team created enough tips to display for a whole year. Have fun! The Transhumanist 21:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I hate to say this, but I really don't want to be doing that. This is your baby, it's really up to you to make sure that you aren't transcluding non-free content... Surely, there must be a way around this other than manual removal? J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, even though I would like to jump in on another big clean up job, I don't have the time. I'm coordinating a very big WikiProject, and I can barely keep up with that. I would suggest that you nominate the template for deletion. That will catch the attention of everyone who wants to keep it. The Transhumanist 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Taking another look, the only place it transcludes to is here: Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (TFL), which is a version of the main page. The main page includes copies of non-free content, so I don't see this as a problem. As long as the template isn't transcluded anywhere else, and since it hasn't been transcluded anywhere else since it was created, there's really nothing to worry about. The Transhumanist 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
It also appears on the template itself, which is not allowed. The main page does not include NFC (ever) and even if it did, it would not extend to this page. There definitely is something to worry about. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've left a comment here. I'm really not seeing the point of these outlines, and I am looking for an explanation. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the heads up. I've replied there. The Transhumanist 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just came across this immediately after leaving you a comment above. Please do not create redirects from the mainspace to the Wikipedia space, userspace or any other space. The mainspace is for articles, not for project issues. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The redirect was created automatically when I moved the article from the main namespace (it wasn't ready for prime time). :) The Transhumanist 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
No problem, and thank you for creating it. I haven't had time to get into its development, but its very close to the top of my list and I hope to get to it soon. Tiamuttalk 12:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On wp:ook the Health section and the People and Self section are very short but are pretty much the same. Can those topics be renamed and merged? -- penubag (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Preferably not. The people section will be one of the largest sections! In the encyclopedia, there are hundreds of outlines of various types of people. We simply haven't worked on that section much yet because we chose to work on Geography instead, for various reasons. The people section is slated for major development further down the road. The Transhumanist 02:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the heads up. I'll fix them when I get to a faster connection - the server at this site is slooooow. The Transhumanist 02:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also finished the index task that you asked me to do, everything except Honduras, which is still locked. I also started Index of Benin-related articles and want to see what you thought of that. (It's still very much a work in progress, I just wasn't expecting the work to take so long.) --Gimme danger (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
You got a lot done. Thank you for jumping in.
For the outline, if you can't find the missing topics on Wikipedia, use Google. I've added in the cabinet and the ministries (See Outline of Japan#Executive branch of the government of Japan for a good example). I'll let you finish the judiciary branch. (Hint: look for "Judiciary of", "Court system of", "Judicial system of", and "Legal system of").
The index task revealed an unforeseen problem, but your updating of the links was the important thing (keep up the excellent work), and provides me with a good place to start my next task.
I've touched up the Index of Benin-related articles. I added a short lead to help identify the subject of the index, and added a references section to handle the reference that's in the lead, then I moved the lists to their own section at the end, and then I configured the CompactTOC8 template using parameters (setting its look, and making sure all the sections were included).
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry I haven't been active that much in weeks on this project my friend, but I'm going to start back working on it though. I have though been contributing to other Wikiprojects, and asking them what their opinion of outlines were. Good news: generally positive feedback :-). Keep up the great work you've been doing as the de facto (thats a word for you) coordinator of this project. Burningview (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nice to see you again. Thank you for the encouragement. The Transhumanist 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It appears he is being WP:DISRUPTIVE. So, List him at WP:AN or WP:ANI, presenting them with the case like you did to me. Sorry for my late reply, i have been VERY, VERY busy lately. at-210discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For the links to other outlines, the invitation to join WP:WPOOK, and the barnstar. I'll be sure to look over the links for some more ideas. It's really very kind of you to take notice and give your fellow editors encouragement. Thanks again. Tiamuttalk 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the pointers, I'm going to be on somewhat of a wikibreak myself until Wednesday (31st) so if there's anything else I'll deal with it then.
Also, I have now had a go at Outline of Greenland
You might also like to have a look at Outline of Palestine as a whole, Tiamut discovered the AfD and has been investing enormous amounts of time and energy making is more politically correct and longer. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 11:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am very impressed that you are keeping an eye on the big picture, and that you were the first one to spot and respond to the AfD. Nicely done. You are doing an excellent job.
Please continue to feel free to contact me about anything you consider important. I'm always interested. The Transhumanist 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our suggested titles are more fun, even if they're not very encyclopedic. Said the Sphinx, thanks for the links. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I appreciate the invitation. I had never really looked at an Outline page before (which probably is obvious from my initial reaction), but after looking at a sample (Outline of Japan), I get the concept, and it's an excellent idea for a navigational aid. I'll sign on. Mandsford (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We probably need a bit of a bigger lead and the connection to related concepts (eg -graph) listed, and a ctiteria for inclusion documented. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You requested this article in the Buddhism Wikiproject. Someone did a lot of work and made it on their own: Outline of Buddhism. Thought you might want to check it out! ☯Zenwhat (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the heads up. That filled a big gap in the religion section of the WP:OOK. The Transhumanist 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
P.S.: Does your scope of interest include human knowledge as a whole (the Big Picture, a bird's eye view, EVERYTHING)? If so, please consider joining WP:WPOOK. -TT
I don't really have any fixed scope of interest on Wikipedia. I enjoy contributing but don't seriously expect anything much to come from this site. I will edit pretty much whatever I want, whenever I want, if I can get away with it (WP:IAR), which tends to be random, small fixes and improvements, and I don't really bother with the hassle of trying to collaborate with anyone. I'm also lazy about searching for good references. And I'm not a consistent editor, like the type of person who will edit Wikipedia every day, several hours a day, week after week. The length of time I spend on here now varies greatly.
So, I might contribute to pretty much any wikiproject, including yours if I happen to feel like it (right now I don't) but I won't make the formal commitment of signing my name to the page or adding some silly category tag, "Support of Wikiproject Whatever," to my userpage. With that said, I think that the lack of good outlines is the least of Wikipedia's issues.
Thanks for the offer, though. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Your AWB Task on Demographics - some seem to have been done - some haven't so I'll have a go. To check, you want the CIA stat bit to be a level 2 heading and the emboldened stuff like Population to become level 3s? Alan16 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
An implicit edit ban exists at the Quiddity talk page, so I am here. Re: joining WP:WPOOK: I've been in the fifth column, second entry for a while. The category of projects at Category:WikiProject Music genres is how I would organize it, thus making the title Outline of rock music. If that is a project you want to throw my way, I would take it on as my first OOK assignment. Sswonk (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Do you know of an example outline of another musical genre? You can reply here, I'm watching the page. Sswonk (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, yours will be the first. I've created the page to help you get started. The Transhumanist 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
What am I missing here? I go to edit the page and there is a bunch of content that doesn't display. Is is transcluding something? Sswonk (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I feel your efforts are best directed at trimming down and rewriting Rock music first. In theory that article should provide an basic overview of the topic, with room for daughter articles. Basically, try revamping Rock music first, then decide if you need the outline. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have moved the section of the outline page which you tagged for neutrality to a sandbox. I think you can remove the tag, please do if you agree. Sswonk (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have moved the whole outline to WP:WPOOK's draft space, where I should have created it in the first place. The Transhumanist 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wesley, I'm an outline builder. It's my specialty. :) I've been working on the Outline of Knowledge for four years now (long before it was renamed to OOK). My efforts are best directed building outlines, and coordinating the efforts of others who are working on them. The Transhumanist 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi, please see the thread at User_talk:Sswonk/Outline_of_rock_music#Move_issue. We were following the advise of a sysop to move the sandbox/draft out of the mainspace and into my user space. Now you have made edits at the same time we have, although I think to different sections. Please hold off a second while we figure this out, i.e. you and I can settle on a place (drafts is OK, but what about the sysop comments?). Sswonk (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
The page was copied and pasted to the sandbox, which is not the proper way to move a page since it does not preserve the page's edit history. The proper way is to use the "move" tab at the top of the page, which I did. See Help:Moving a page#Page histories. The sandbox is a WP:CFORK of the original. The original was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of rock music. The copy should be merged into the original, and then the copy (sandbox) speedy deleted. The Transhumanist 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I fumbled that one at the time. I had something in the back of my head telling me not to move a page to a subpage of its own talk, it would have been Outline of rock music --> Talk:Outline of rock music/Sandbox so at any rate I think we can live with how it is now. I merged the Sswonk version talk page per the instructions at Help:Merge. For my sake, please confirm everything is lined up correctly. I think I have to keep the subpages User:Sswonk/Outline of rock music and User talk:Sswonk/Outline of rock music because the page histories are not merged, any help on how to do that? Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Parallel_versions has me worried. Sswonk (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Of the four essential aspects of the OOK you listed, I find the administrative one most appealing and fitting for myself. I have a good idea of what makes a good outline and what it takes to get there, so I'd be filling to help you out with developing the guideline (in addition to the helpful tips). I am sort of confused though- we have the main outline guideline right now and the draft, were you planning on completely revamping it and then transferring it all to article space? Or are they intended to be separate articles? Minnecologies (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Welcome aboard. I'm very happy that you are taking an interest in the big picture.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Done1, 2
Also, some info on my status (if it concerns you) I'm taking a 3 week wikibreak starting tomorrow. More info on my userpage if you should care. Good luck TT! -- penubag (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hey, thanks dude, but today's not over yet. Any last minute requests/fix ups?
And I'll be sure to take some pics with my crappy digital camera :) -- penubag (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sure, take the sandbox, it's all yours. About the medal, I've made it bigger and placed it under Africa in this revision but to me it looks out of place and awkward. So this one is bigger but on the side. What do you think? -- penubag (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you're happy with below africa, revert my last edit here -- penubag (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I tried placing it on a page, so I could compare it side by side with the other one, and it came up as the old version. Could you upload it as a separate version? The Transhumanist 20:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'll upload 2 copies. BTW replied on the barnstar sandbox -- penubag (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
here's the other one. Kinda sad we have a dictator who "is unwilling to act in contravention of community consensus". -- penubag (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, check out the new outline barnstar and tell me if it's good. -- penubag (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Outline of computer engineering. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Transhumanist, you are among other things talented at facilitating discussions in an unusual way -- through your energy and enthusiasm :-) I'd appreciate your input on the Community facilitation project, which among other things aims to maintain a set of long-term discussion pages at WP:Issues.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just to note that you should use {{Template:Interrupted}} when splitting up another user's comment to insert your own responses, for the sake of readability. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As I have asked you several times before, can you please take me off your list for your project. I can assure you that I try to improve Wikipedia and have done all kinds of stuff (translation, railways, chemistry, whatever) but I cannot do everything at once. I am sure it is a worthy project but I cannot help and there is no point pretending I can.
Thank you, and thank you for making WP better! SimonTrew (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You'll have to stop placing your personal essays in Wikipedia: namespace. Seriously, how old are you? You have shown renitent disregard for every principle of Wikipedia's namespace organization. You want to write an opinion piece on "why we need outline"? Please do that, but do it in your own user space. Thank you. --dab(𒁳) 09:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Replied on my talk page. Also, would you mind archiving your talk page? It takes 7 or 8 seconds to load on my computer! Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Talkback/thread notes: 2 replies for you at my talkpage, and 2 other posts[8], [9] just for fyi of what i've said, and what I'm thinking at the moment.
(this wikibreak concept is marvelously relaxing! however the 7 days of watchlist is starting to look daunting... i'll be back soon.) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
2 more replies at my talk. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
Thanks. I condensed the lead down to purely idiosyncratic Lebanese material, (which sadly is primarily war, chaos, and more chaos) so it should be suitable for an outline. I've also looked through the outline and everything seems correct. The only things I'd like to change are some of the geographical terms that obviously don't apply, like fjords or volcanoes. It's impossible to find a source displaying negative proof (e.g. source A states Lebanon does not have volcanoes) for them, leaving me unsure as to how to deal with them. Mnation2 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I'm asking you this because you seem like the type of person who'd know...
Do you know if there's any place on Wikipedia where a person can request that a piece of artwork be made for Wikipedia (for the Wikimedia Commons)? I know there's a place for people can request scripts or bots, so I thought, why not art?
Because I had a good idea for something for the Outline of Buddhism article, which would also be a fun project: It would be neat to have a single image depicting the various mythological creatures of Buddhist cosmology. Nagas, Garudas, Gandhabbas, Yakkhas, Snow Lions, etc.. There are some pictures of these things on the Commons already, but they're not very good and couldn't be combined into a single presentation, for instance, for the Buddhist cosmology article or the Buddhist Outline. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I highly recommend that you try to do it yourself. Many graphics software programs are free, and are as or nearly as powerful as their non-free counterparts. You'll be surprised how easy graphics programs are to use when you have the proper instructions. For instructions, Wikipedia-style, see...
A program not listed on there is Splashup a raster graphics program run online (from its website). Wikipedia needs a tutorial on it, so if you get good at using it, please contribute one.
Another free program not listed, but of the download type, is Paint.NET.
Dipping into the effort yourself will help you understand the programs better so that you can better specify what you may want others to do, and so that you can touch up their work (very handy). And you may be surprised at the quality results you can produce yourself.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm finally done with the Ds, I think, and it only took me a month, since I'm super efficient. I've marked them done on your workpage, along with my name to indicate that only I've checked them over.
If you have any more tasks for me, let me know. I'm getting more interested in dispute resolution and mentoring users than gnoming at the moment, but I still need something to do while doing nothing, if you know what I mean. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I'll look over the D's and will provide feedback to you when I do.
Yes, I have another very important task for you...
Read each outline (and each outline's talk page), and when you come across a problem, let me know what it is.
This will help us decide what needs to be done.
As you look over the outlines, if you get any ideas on how to improve them, please let me know those too.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi trans. Im not ready to support your rfa at this time. But Im just worreid over query 8. At my university i would never use a public terminal to edit. Mostly becuase the terminals are assceable to everyone and anyone. Is your university set up slighlty more secured?. Basically at ours anyone can come in and use the internet even if they dont specifically have a university account. This at times causes people to forget to log off very easily. Is this the same at yours?, Or does your library require an individual log in under their own accounts and access is granted only to valid accounts? I have no reason to oppose you on your rfa and I wont be opposing either. i just need a bit more reassurance here on the security of these terminals before i can support. Thank you for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The RfA is the place to address these issues, in the questions section, for the benefit of the participants there. Thank you. The Transhumanist 16:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
First, I was stunned to see your RFA withdrawal. Very sorry to see it. I've only !voted in a handful of RFA's, but I take the !vote seriously, and do some homework before weighing in. I thought sure this would be the time.
I'll understand if you have other things on your mind at the moment, but while checking you out, I saw your optimum tool suite or whatever it is called. I installed it, and I've been using it. I already had Wiked installed, but I've started exploring the other things.
Today I saw the beta button and checked it out. Didn't stay long, mainly because I realized my tools were gone. I now think (bit not sure) that beta is vector, so do I just have to follow the same instructions, and add the tools to the Vector skin? Or is there something else that needs to be done?--SPhilbrickT 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure Beta is Vector - Beta's sidebar menu looks different than the last screen shot of Vector I saw. But if it is Vector, WP:VECTOR will tell you what you need to know. The Transhumanist 03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Transhumanist my friend,
Its about time you deserve a barnstar for all your contributions to outlines on Wikipedia, and also for being the promoter that you are for outlines. If it wasn't for you we might not have outlines as they are, so It it my honor to present to you the Special Barnstar beacause no other barnstar could merit what you do for outlines on Wikipedia:-) Burningview (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Special Barnstar
This barnstar is presented to Transhumanist for all the hard work, contributions, coordination, and promotion he does in advancing the idea, coverage, content, and quality of Outlines on Wikipedia. For this he deserves a Special Barnstar Burningview (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi.
What does "lexical pattern" include?
It sounds pretty general. Don't all glossaries have lexical patterns? I mean, they're lists of definitions. You can't get more lexical than that, right? So are you saying that all glossaries are out?
No, glossaries are not formed on lexical patterns at all. They are lists that are used to help read and understand an area or a piece of text of some kind. The Wikipedia is not a lexical work, it's a collection of topics. Valid encyclopedic topics are not lists of words beginning in 'k' or ending in 'ing' or whatever; lists along lexical lines are clearly extremely unencyclopedic and are very dictionary-like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
To be perfectly honest, this is so obvious I am having a hard time believing that you are not simply being deliberately disruptive, and to be honest there is a fair amount of evidence that points towards that position.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought "lexical" pertained to dictionaries in general. Here's the wiktionary entry, where many AfD'ers are likely to check first (notice the second context):
1 : of or relating to words or the vocabulary of a language as distinguished from its grammar and construction
2 : of or relating to a lexicon or to lexicography
According to WM, the primary context of a "lexicon" is "a book containing an alphabetical arrangement of the words in a language and their definitions : dictionary"
So, glossaries are lexical.
Making "lexical" too ambiguous to disallow lexical things in a guideline that includes lexical things (glossaries).
Also, you are bing way too esoteric. How many junior and highschool kids (who can and do participate in AfDs) know what "lexical" or "lexical pattern" means?
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unlucky with the RFA. I thought you should have passed - the opposes seemed a bit harsh to me. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi.
What does "lexical pattern" include?
It sounds pretty general. Don't all glossaries have lexical patterns? I mean, they're lists of definitions. You can't get more lexical than that, right? So are you saying that all glossaries are out?
No, glossaries are not formed on lexical patterns at all. They are lists that are used to help read and understand an area or a piece of text of some kind. The Wikipedia is not a lexical work, it's a collection of topics. Valid encyclopedic topics are not lists of words beginning in 'k' or ending in 'ing' or whatever; lists along lexical lines are clearly extremely unencyclopedic and are very dictionary-like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
To be perfectly honest, this is so obvious I am having a hard time believing that you are not simply being deliberately disruptive, and to be honest there is a fair amount of evidence that points towards that position.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought "lexical" pertained to dictionaries in general. Here's the wiktionary entry, where many AfD'ers are likely to check first (notice the second context):
1 : of or relating to words or the vocabulary of a language as distinguished from its grammar and construction
2 : of or relating to a lexicon or to lexicography
According to WM, the primary context of a "lexicon" is "a book containing an alphabetical arrangement of the words in a language and their definitions : dictionary"
So, glossaries are lexical.
Making "lexical" too ambiguous to disallow lexical things in a guideline that includes lexical things (glossaries).
Also, you are being way too esoteric. How many junior and highschool kids (who can and do participate in AfDs) know what "lexical" or "lexical pattern" means?
Lexicon, lexicographic, lexical are all about dictionaries. They're about simple collections of letters and morphemes and dictionaries and definitions thereof. WP:DICDEF says that this is what wikipedia is NOT.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
To the extent that you are successful in arguing that glossaries are dictionaries, you're successful in arguing that wikipedia shouldn't have them. That's not my claim. My claim is that the subset of glossaries that are constructed along lexical grounds are unencyclopedic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your argument that 'oh it's all so complicated' doesn't really cut it, not when you're arguing for dicdef lists. YOU know what this is about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm copying this discussion to WT:STAND, so that other editors can weigh in on this. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was sorry, though not overly surprised, to see the way that it went. My commiserations.
Among the rot that was thrown at you, was one issue I noticed that I thought you might pay attention to. It seems that there is quite some opposition to the Outlines project - either in terms of its very existence, or in terms of the way it's been put up willy nilly.
I wondered if you had thought about responding to this in some way, perhaps with a discussive RfC, appropriately promoted at the VP, Signpost and CENT, to see what consensus said? You have some well-developed examples now (not to mention the chocolate animation!) for people to see what's being proposed.
The basic topic lists were renamed from "List of basic ____ topics" to "Topic outline of ____" in September 2008, and were renamed to "Outline of _____" in March of this year. The current name has attracted a lot of attention, mostly good. Looks like we finally found the right name for these!
To refresh your memory, they're just "structured lists", which is how the list guidelines have referred to this type of list over the years. They were built in accordance with WP:STAND. There are thousands of structured lists on Wikipedia (most of them are still named "List of") - it is one of the two main formats for lists. The other major list format is alphabetical.
I hope this jogs your memory. :)
A good sense of the community's perspective on these can be gotten from the AfDs over the years:
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I saw a redlink for an Outline of water on the WP:WPOOK page as an example of why we need outlines. I looked into it further and found there was definitely a need so I created it. I've just moved it into the mainspace. Feel free to check it over and it'll need putting on all the projected outline stuff but I'm not really sure how to do that. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wow. I had no idea there was that much water-related stuff on Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
I'm an outsider to Outlines and Lists, but generally I think your comment is very helpful and needs to be addressed in the body text of the article, and also needs a sentence in the lead.
It's too late at night for me to closely read your comments and make further revisions to my "3rd proposal". I'm wondering if you'd like to just make edits directly to my proposal, to bring it into consistency with your comments, and then indicate afterward that "Andrew Gradman invited me to integrate my comments directly into this proposal". Or something like that. I don't yet have a deft touch at managing talk page discussions.
I included an invitation at WP: Village Pump (miscellaneous), so hopefully that will draw the appropriate level of discussion to this.
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
What is going on with that glossary? Don't you think the recent manuevers are a major re-purpose? They apparently deleted -ism (which is okay I guess, however I would like to have moved the content elsewhere.) I wonder if you aren't as concerned about this as I am, and perhaps more open minded to "Glossary of philosophical theories" these days?
I also did not know you were up for admin and pulled your nomination... I would have voted for you. I am a little concerned about the political environment after looking at that process. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that's a shotgun blast of issues. :) I'll try to address them one-at-a-time:
Glossary - it got renamed, as the most logical starting point for a general glossary on philosophy. If we simply copied it, to start the general glossary, the copy would have been AfD'd pretty fast. See the talk page for more details.
A major repurpose? - No. A general glossary of philosophical terms would and should include all philosophical theory terms and all philosophical ism terms. Being the largest collection of philosophical term descriptions on Wikipedia, it makes sense that the glossary of philosophical isms form the base from which the general glossary be constructed. Once it has grown to sufficient size, subsets can be copied from it to construct more specialized glossaries, such as a Glossary of philosophical theories and a Glossary of philosophical isms. If done now, both of those would be almost identical to the current glossary, and would no doubt be nominated at AfD.
Yes it is a major repurpose. There are now being added things like "a posteriori" which are not theories (or isms, or any of that). This totally defeats the purpose of gathering together all the isms in the first place. Those items should be included in a Glossary of philosophical concepts. This is a useful organization of things which is being lost with this recent activity. I had merged two of these ism lists only to have my efforts undone. At some point I would like to go in there and organize things, but I need some cooperation to do that. Please take a look at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories, I am going to work consistent with that plan at some point so, please do comment on it. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Expanding from theories to concepts is no larger a repurpose than going from isms to theories. Both isms and theories are concepts, and would be included in a general glossary on the subject. I still would like to maintain a glossary of isms, but a general glossary needs to be constructed, and the ism glossary is the best (biggest) starting point. And as I pointed out above, simply forking it (to use a copy as the starting point instead of the original) would invite AfD action. So repurposing is the best option. If you'd rather not this not take place, I'm in favor of restoring the glossary of philosophical isms. If we're going to repurpose that glossary, we might as well do it all the way for philosophy as a whole. The Transhumanist 00:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Content of the -ism article - There is no need for regret here. Anyone can request of any admin to move a deleted article to their userspace. See WP:USERFY#Userfication of deleted content.
RfA - In my opinion, the biggest problem with RfA is that common decency isn't being upheld there. Wikipedia's own code of conduct, its behavioral guidelines, is not being adequately enforced there (or barely at all). Acts of defamation (lies, slander/libel, misleading statements, false light, etc.) and character assassination are tolerated. That is not right, nor acceptable. Therefore, to force myself to face the problems of the RfA process, I have retained my current account name, and I have been going for adminship only while in the midst of a conflict. The Transhumanist 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you about the 'shark tank' type of culture. It seems that there are a few real bullies out there. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I apologize for taking a hiatus so unanounced, but I'm back now and would like to help with the Outline project although I must admit I wasen't really helping before... Just tell me where to go!--SKATERSpeak. 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! How's it been going?
I've had a wonderful time during vacation, minus a few things. I managed to take a few shots with my camera until it got totally drenched during a typhoon. Luckily I have a few pictures that are upload worthy for Wikipedia although I wasn't able to take any more pictures afterwards and am forced to buy a new camera soon. The culture in Japan is amazing. The technology is a few years ahead of the US's and everyone is so courteous. If you were to visit another country, Japan should have a spot on your list! The rest of my vacation was good as well but shot without a camera. Anyways, how's it been going for you?
Looking around on your talk page shows me that you applied for adminminship. It's an extreme shame that someone like you who cares so much about this project isn't given proper respect. If I were given a chance to voice my opinion, I would write that your leadership skills are exemplary (just look at OOK now) and would be valuable asset to the administrator crew. What amazes me more is you continue to help out Wikipedia after countless put downs from all angles and numerous times at all your Rfa's. Opposing because it's your 5th Rfa is a bogus argument. If anything, the resilience and dedication even after all those failed rfa's should count for something. And I'm not saying this just to make you happy.
Anyways...I hope everything's been going well on your side. I'm extremely happy to see Outline of water be started, it's sort of like a dream that came true! I will continue to complete the requests you have given me. -- penubag (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's more to my RfAs than meets the eye. ;) I'm dedicated to RfA reform, and in order to fix the problems at RfA (such as its "shark tank" culture, tolerance of WP:CIVIL violations there, watchlisting by long-term opponents of future RfAs, etc.), I force myself to face them. My approach entails that I keep my current account name (rather than make a WP:CLEANSTART) and that I only apply for or accept RfA nominations when I'm in the midst of a conflict or controversy. During my last RfA I was embroiled in a conflict over OOK (with Roux and others).
The "pile on" phenomenon at RfA is definitely a problem that is difficult to overcome. It's especially frustrating when editors lie about you and others who subsequently drop by and accept their posts at face value and oppose based on those lies. For example, Roux stated "his utter inability to even grant the vaguest hint that maybe critics might have a point and refusal to answer simple questions about it. It shows an appalling lack of judgement and complete inability to listen to others." His statement was generally misleading and also included a blatant untruth...
As you know, I painstakingly answer all queries about outlines. I was especially attendant to Roux's queries, arguments, and accusations concerning outlines, which he posted on my talk page and eslewhere. But he claimed I didn't answer! His post at RfA is ironic, since his point is that outlines generally suck and his position is to delete the outlines - agreeing with him means promoting the death of the outline project! And he apparently equates disagreeing with him as "inability to listen to others", even if you answer him point for point.
To make matters worse, RfA custom is that nominees are expected to refrain from replying in the voting sections. Replying there may be interpretted as arguing (and "shows lack of admin skill"). If you do reply in the oppose section, you may find your doing so as the reason opposers give for opposing! Nominees are left to sit their and take it.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I read your posts about outlines on AnnaFrance's talk page and decided to call the military history project for help in establishing guidance and providing review processes where editors can get outside opinion. The thread can be found here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I still strongly believe those "Historical outline of foo" articles should actually be named "Timeline of foo". More accurate and precise, and perhaps comprehensible. (I mentioned it before somewhere, but can't find it now).
Maybe we need to upgrade List of timelines to be a part of the Portal:Contents/ set?
Just a note, for you to consider, whilst you're mass-moving things around... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Based on the way the history section of outlines have been developed (especially the history sections of country outlines), the major classification scheme seems to be:
By period
By region
By subject
Which makes these articles general outlines, rather than timelines. The "By period" section may be a timeline, if it is formatted that way.
As far as I can tell, the "historical outline of" articles by Buaidh aren't chronological, but topical, which makes them generic outlines rather than outlines of the timeline variety.
