Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 4

• CORE TOPICS
• Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.
• Core topics COTW

knowledge structures: a complementary project

You know, after playing with knowledge structures a bit, it seems:

Developing and deciding on which knowledge structure(s) to use is a needed 1.0 project. This is a quasi-separate project from the possible development evolution of the 150/200 articles list or of the 1000 list, but knowledge structures probably would be refined as the list is refined.

Heck, any publication needs a table of contents (which embodies a knowledge structure). Wikipedia has a top level knowledge structure that varies slightly in terms of the similar portal, list, and category main subject structures. It seems these top level English wikipedia outlines will be restructured soon, as an issue that came up for follow up to the front page redesign project.

So, put another way: what subject categories should be used in organizing 1.0, the project, and eventually, the publication? How is knowledge organized under those categories. One version of this is on the Core Topics Tree, created by Martin, where he used a main topic scheme I borrowed from the French Wikipedia front page and then this was further edited by me (and it is not quite finished--a bit of rewording needed).

Perhaps various ideas about knowledge outlines need to be sorted and condensed into several knowledge structures that can then be decided upon or tried for awhile (and refined).

This harkens back to the idea mentioned a few days ago about coming to consensus on what subject categories to use. Vir 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent good article review finished

The last of the seven A-class articles submitted recently to the Good Article list were reviewed yesterday.

These articles were given GA status: Drawing, Gender, Judaism, and Soccer.

These were not approved: Demographics, Natural disaster and Sculpture. Comments about needed improvements were placed on the article talk pages by GA reviewers.

Sometime, it would be good to note these GA statuses in the Core topics table.

The GA project seems very helpful. The GA list will need support to pass from proposal to project status.

These GA rejections may give us pause to think about the need to review A-class articles and how A-class criteria are assigned to Core topics articles. Perhaps this might work the other way too--with Core topic evaluations as a double check on GA evaluations (which can be approved by only one person) -- and, no doubt, other Wikipedia evaluation groups and article improvement drive processes too will help refine articles and evaluation processes.

It seems to make sense to submit the best of the B-class articles to the GA list, since some of our B-class articles are approved there.

OK, time for me to get to work and take a break... Vir 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelmed

Maybe it's because I work nights, but seems like I missed out somewhat above. I confessed I only scanned it.

I agree with the general idea of levels, and have been outlining something in that regard (I'd like to show you, but the short answer is it's not quite ready yet).

About the number of core topics -- It's important to me to start with a small base (say, 200 at the very most) and then build from there. I often think it's good to work in stages. I envision getting the main X number done, and then getting another set done, and so on.

Part of my rationale is that the amount of work needed is not overwhelming and it's much easier to find a stopping point (I don't think I'm explaining that as well as I'd like).

And to me, very few are actually "done" yet. Antarctica is done. To me, the assessments list to me is just a snapshot, or work guide.

All That's just my opinion. I am open to replacing any of these core topics. Maurreen 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think sometimes we get distracted by the process. Maurreen 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there was so much text to go through--got on a roll and perhaps some of that could've been sandbox material. Here are some of main points that I was talking about in recent posts above:

Summary of some possible core topics tasks. It could be helpful: 1) to make subsets of the Core topics, from most general to less general, and then focus work on most general subgroup first; 2) to look at some different ways to organize the knowledge in the top level subject categories and to choose by consensus one (or more) category schemes to work with (this is a larger project than core topics but probably needs to be done for 1.0--but part of this actually might be almost done for our purposes, based on the core topics tree that Martin created and I edited); 3) to consider general topics that could be added to the core topics list. I'll summarize these 3 items into some possible action items in a post below, made later. Vir 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is more clear. I hope my tone didn't come across wrong.

If I understand you correctly, I strongly agree with No. 1 (make subsets of the Core topics, from most general to less general, and then focus work on most general subgroup first) and am at least open about No. 2 and 3. I've been having some technical trouble, but hope to be able to show you guys a possible outline for further topics this weekend, if that's not too far away. Maurreen 08:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By levels, you mean something like this, right? Maurreen 08:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Done" articles

Thanks mainly to Gflores, Antarctica is now FA. Do we want to do anything special to try to ensure it doesn't deteriorate, and similarly for future articles we improve and approve? Some options:

• Wikipedia:Stable versions (I don't know whether this is ready.)
• Just keep an eye on it.
• Copy to user subpage.
• Copy to project subpage. Maurreen 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I created an archive partly for this purpose - from there you're only two clicks away from the original FA. In fact I added a geology section to it after it became FA, to meet a strong objection that was posted near the end of the FAC process. There have been other useful edits (I'm assuming my work was useful!) since then - so I hope these aren't lost in WP 1.0. I think the best thing would just be to keep an eye on it. If it looks bad at publication time we can always go back to an earlier version, but Jimbo Wales seems keen to avoid that. I don't think stable versions is up & running yet, is it? I think the article will stay good - there have been about a dozen reverts done in the last 5 days by 7 people and a bot, so plenty of folks are watching it anyway. But archives may be more important for less prominent non-FAs. Walkerma 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the archive is a good idea. Maurreen 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pics & images for Core topics' articles

I would like to offer my help in identifying pics for articles on core topics. I am an admin in Wikimedia commons and have expertise in this area. Is there a list of "requested pics for Version 1.o articles" or something like it? If not, can one such lis be created at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics/Requests for pictures and images. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. I don't know of any image needs off the top of my head. Maurreen

Yes, thanks! That could be a very useful resource! Technology, our current COTF, could use a couple more images to liven it up. There is quite a lot of material on the impact of technology on society & culture - a group of people all talking on cellphones would be great for that, I think. I will certainly take you up on your offer, thanks! Walkerma 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have started with researching and adding images to Technology. I am only chosing images that have enough resolution to warrant their inclusion. I have started the page Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics/Requests for pictures and images, so that requests can be place there, and actions reported.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Those look good, thanks. Maurreen 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have also added images to Advertising and will continue down the list of Core topics articles to see if these need attention as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Added images to Agriculture and Archaeology. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi, these additions are very helpful in improving these articles. You'll have a lot of fun with Art - when I first assessed this in October I was astonished to find no pictures in the article! Now there is one, at least, but I'm sure you can do better. Go Jossi! Walkerma 04:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, great job! Education could use a few more, but I see you're going down the list, so take your time. Gflores ^Talk 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will work on these next. I am taking a day off from WP (at least trying...!) and enjoy the wonderful California weather... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Completed so far:Advertising, Agriculture, Algebra, Anthropology, Archaeology, Architecture and Art. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Completed Astronomy, Automobile and Biotechnology ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're on a roll! Thanks. Maurreen 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Great pics, Jossi! However, I don't think that the one for Anthropology is appropriate. As the article says, Anthropology is the study of humanity. That implies humans (plural, rather than singular). Would you be able to find a picture of a large grouping of people of diverse cultures? Sunray 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Found one. Sunray 13:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent choice! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Added images to Society. Sunray 07:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure about these.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they are not the best. I like the top picture, just not for the lead. Perhaps we can find a better lead picture. Sunray 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW what was it that you didn't like about these images? Sunray 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply that I did not find it suitable to feature a photo of group of teenagers and another of a religious procession in Spain as the best choice to illustrate "Society". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Humm, when I put those pictures there, I was thinking of the definition of society as an aggregate of humans sharing culture and institutions. The one of the teenagers shows shared culture (their clothing; cellphones) and shows them interacting, suggesting relationship. The picture of the religious procession shows some of the institutional aspects of human society (ritual, procession, costumes, etc). However, as I said, I don't necessarily think that they are the best pictures we could come up with, so will keep looking. Sunray 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Geography focus?

This is mainly food for thought; it won't bother me if the idea is shot down.

But I think it's worth considering focusing on continent and country articles first. That would be about 150 and I think most are in pretty good shape now.

Once that set is ready (with possibly a limited number of related entries), it could maybe be enough to stand on its own. It would be of broad interest, but substantive and specific, and of a very doable, manageable size.

And a release version of an "Encyclopedia of Nations" (or somesuch) might draw more people to the general 1.0 project. Maurreen

Hey, that's a GREAT idea Maurreen, I love it! I think I'd want to include major cities too like London, most of those are in great shape too (many have their own WikiProjects). We'd need some sort of atlas, I dare say someone on Wikipedia could do that. Yes, let's do this, it would be a great way to "test the waters". Cheers, Walkerma 04:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think someone had mentioned including some space stuff. I notice here that Worldtraveller is considering putting together a Wikireader for the Solar System, and most of the planet articles are FAs (seeing Sun on the front page reminded me). Should we consider including at least Sun, Moon and the nine planets in this release? Also, on my proposed new main page I called this the Gazetteer project, is that OK for a name? Walkerma 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly, but:

I'd generally prefer to postpone deciding such things as whether to include the planets. For instance, if the planets are ready to go when the countries are, great. If they are way behind the countries, I would see little reason to wait.

And thanks for reminding me about Gazetteer. I lean toward just calling it the the geography subproject for now. Maurreen 20:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Core Topics on Good articles list

Here are some Core topics articles that are on Good articles list (including some mentioned recently) that are not noted in table yet:

Advertising - Agriculture - Archaeology - Biology - Crime - English language - Gender - Islam - Judaism - Mathematics - Physics - Sociology - Sound - Statistics - Television

Will get on updating table in the text field. Vir

Updated the table for GA status. Five of the GA articles are still classified as B-class. We need to review those. Vir 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured and Good Articles

Just looked through featured and good articles for general articles or key specific articles. Here are some possible freebies that could be considered for inclusion in the basic topics:

Proposed core topic additions (general articles and key specific topics):

• Big Bang - FA
• Black hole - FA
• Climate change - GA
• Global warming - GA
• Earth - GA
• Evolution - FA
• Free will - FA
• Gender role - FA
• Globalization - GA
• History of Earth - GA
• History of the world - GA
• Literacy - GA
• Moon - GA
• Planetary nebula - FA
• Quantum mechanics - FA
• Quark - GA
• Race - FA
• Sun - FA

Possible additions, major specific articles:

• Algorithm - FA
• Comet - FA
• Dark Ages - GA
• Diplomacy - GA
• Electrical engineering - FA
• Film - GA
• Game theory
• Glacier - GA
• God - GA
• History of science - GA
• The Holocaust - GA
• Mercury (planet) - GA
• Nutrition - GA
• Plate tectonics
• Silk Road - GA
• Sociocultural evolution - FA
• Special relativity - GA
• Thermodynamics - GA
• Volcano - GA
• Water - GA

The astonomical and geological elements above might complement the idea of a test Atlas -- that could extend beyond the earth. The Wikipedia astronomical community has been productive.

What do you think about adding the proposed list above? Any of the possible list? Including those GA articles in the note above and adding some of these possible articles could make more than 50 core articles (or core and potential top 1000 articles, if not accepted as core) with FA or GA status. There are only 6 or so core topics with FA status now. Oh, we need a format to mark GA status (once that is an approved project). Vir 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for going through these, I know it's a lot of work. Got to get to bed soon, so I won't review each one, but many of these could be added IMHO. Also on "astronomical" I thought you might appreciate this lively discussion. I suspect you should get some sleep too, Vir! Walkerma 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, been pretty active. In fact, after reassessing a bit, I have decided I have too much to do this year to volunteer here. So, I need to back out for awhile. Perhaps I can help in a year or two. Best wishes, Vir 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible core topics or top 1000 articles; a few other possible additions

1) These also popped out of reviewing Good articles:

There are some possible Core Topics additions mixed in here. These are somewhat major specific articles; perhaps some would fit in a top 1000 list:

• Bird - Dog - Spider - All GA
• Cat - Frog - Orca - All FA
• Bacteria - Brain - Cell (biology) - DNA - Protein - Virus - All GA
• AIDS · Black Death · Cancer · Measles · Rabies · Smallpox - all GA
• Hydrogen - Steel - both GA
• Diamond - Glass - Nuclear weapon - Radar - Typewriter - All FA.
• Black pepper · Butter · Cheese · Tea -- All FA
• Apple · Banana · Beer · Bread · Chocolate · Cocoa · Coffee · Milk · Sugar -- All GA
• Academy - Cooperative - Creationism - History of the Internet - All GA
• American Revolutionary War - History of nuclear weapons - Napoleonic Wars - United States Declaration of Independence - World War II - All GA
• Mail - Map projection - both GA

And, a few other possible additions:

2) I propose we add these to the core topics list because they are top level categories in the English Wikipedia portal, list or category pages:

• Abstractions - Biography - Natural sciences - People

3) I propose we add these to the core topics because of fundamental generality:

• Universe - Nature - Life - Knowledge

Note1: Most of these last eight suggestions are all around "start" in status. Merit of adding is in covering this ground somewhat sooner than later.

Note2: Some of the topics on the core topics now are specific and not so general articles. I think it is ok to expand the list of core topics, if articles are of general or major importance (and/or of good quality). Vir 05:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Core topic additions

How about putting any additions on a separate list or page? Maurreen 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be good. Hopefully we can integrate everything afterwards with trees. I think we should make sure that this time the table includes date of assessment - I think we can omit the portal column to maek room for it. Maybe we should upload Vir's last list (so sad he's had to leave!) as a starting point, and debate from there? Walkerma 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Core topic trees

I've compiled a list of options for top levels of core topic trees here: core topic trees.

Based on comments in various places by Martin, Maurreen and I, this core topics project seems to need 2 things in terms of basic knowledge outlines/trees/structures. 1) We need a simple structure to work with now. We can choose basic stuctures from a pool of options, the above list being a list of current options (as of time of this note -- the options are sort of expanding because...). 2) We can continue to expore more options for useful and insightfully structured knowledge categories (and, I've been working on that). Vir 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My favorite top level categories are similar this outline: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics/Tree

The above are variations on the French Wikipedia main page top level category headings.

Here is a version of these that is my current favorite (with 9 categories):

• Long Option 2B (2B in first link above):
  • Art
  • Everyday Life & Leisure
  • Culture & Society
  • Geography
  • History
  • Philosophy & Religion
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
  • Natural Sciences & Mathematics
  • Technology & Applied Sciences

The above is close to what we have as current English Wikipedia top categories (though those use one word labels). See the top link above for discussion of why to add history back in.

I prefer the longer version above to various other french-derived versions and shorter options. The shorter versions often either leave something out or are some sort of combined shorthand for the above. This is because in outlining the world we are working with multiple types of life experience and knowledge that cannot be captured in a few categories. For example, Humanties & Social Sciences cannot be collapsed well into the sciences or into culture/society. A number of fields (human history (as opposed to natural history), human geography, etc.) straddle a space between being a cultural study and a social science. However...

If we go with a shorter category set, I recommend using something like this, with combined french category headings:

• Short Option 1: french categories combined
  • Culture & Society
  • Philosophy & Religion
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
  • Science & Technology

The philosophy & religion category could be rolled into culture & humanities (they stradles both). I strongly believe that one word titles should not be used exclussively for top level categories in short lists like the immediately above. (Use single words when meaning is clear, else information/knowledge is lost.) At this point, I think we should stick close to the French top level topic outline as it is well conceived. At this point, there is no sense in reinventing the wheel. Perhaps we can do better later (which would take a lot of talk). :)

The point of the above is to present a category system that is both meaningful in organizing knowledge (adding knowledge by virtue of that organization) and that helps people navigate knowledge domains. The french top level catgetory system (which can be further polished) does both of these well. Vir 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. The following is a mid-length compromise of 6 topics, which drops history and geography since they are mostly in area of humanities and social sciences and drops art since the arts are part of culture & society and the humanities (depending on what aspect of the arts you are considering). Vir 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Middle Option 1:
  • Everyday Life & Leisure
  • Culture & Society
  • Philosophy & Religion
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
  • Natural Sciences & Mathematics
  • Technology & Applied Sciences

• I don't know if we're voting, but I like the middle option foremost, but I think the long option 2B is good too. But what do I know? :) Gflores ^Talk 19:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we all know things about our multi-faceted world (and know them from various perspectives and values, all valuable) :) Summarizing discussions that developed in several locations, my interpretation of where we are on this is that we are doing two processes: we are picking something that works in short run and we are expanding options for the long run. (It is possible these processes may interact.) In the short run, we are in a sort of voting or selection phase of selecting top level(s) for a knowledge outline. (The link at the very top of this page has a larger pool of options.) This is sort of informal though it could be formalized, For sure, this decision process needs to be written up more formally as a final vote or consensus selection process (hopefully) when we get a smaller pool of options. At the same time, we are (or at least I am) expanding options and models for basic knowledge structures -- which may result in an ongoing discussion process. This particular post is my collection of votes for what I think could work best now. I added a comment along these lines at the top of this post. Vir 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Vir. Wikipedia can be addicting. These are some good options. I've outlined another possibility at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Tree 2. Maurreen 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, thx, never really left -- just scaled back effort & time. Yes, I've seen your possibility; I included a link to your option in the link at the very top of this comment string, and in that, at the top of the section of short outlines. I do think that going with one of the French main categories as top level is better for now. Martin, Gflores, and I have expressed some sort of approval of that system, at some time recently. I believe those evaluations do not exclude developing other knowledge trees/structures. But, that will take time. After choosing a "working" top level structure, I think we should take some time to evaluate various other options/revisions. Is it possible to put forward the proposal to this group for agreement (by more than 4 of us) that we use a variation of the well developed French main category sets as top level for our "working" knowledge tree? If so, great. At the same time, we can continue to develop and discuss other structures. Vir 15:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support "Long Option 2B" for our main user interface (I think this is the one you mean, Vir?) - it will mesh well with existing classifications e.g. on the main page. I don't like hierarchies to be too "tall", I prefer them to be "flatter." In other words, I like to get quickly to the article I want, even if that means having 6-9 subcategories at each stage. We can play with other schemes later as the fancy takes us, but I think for now we need at least one to work with and to propose to the main project. Walkerma 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For a "working" top level interface (tree/knowledge structure), along with Gflores, I like "Middle Option 1" above best. However, also along with Gflores, I can support "Long Option 2B" above (or some close variant) because of the two points Martin mentions: 1) similarity to current categories and hence easy adaptability; and 2) ease in access to core topics articles because of a flatter hierarchy. Those are very good reasons. So, that makes 3 "votes" for "2B" and 2 "votes" for the middle option. After we hear from Maurreen, I think we should propose to use the French systems to this list/talk page and include a couple of variants (both middle and longer). As this is a very basic structure (which entails certain assumptions / views about knowledge and the world), I think needs an extra round of full approval. Vir 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. this afternoon, I've expanded and edited this overview page to include more middle and long options: core topic trees. Based on this work, my current favorite for a many category top level may be shifting to option "2D" (with 12 categories). Reasoning why is noted at the end of the page. However, "2B" may be more workable/useable in terms of generality and amount number of categories. Vir 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to hold up production, but I don't like either of the two leading choices. So you all can work around me if you like, that's OK.

In both Long Option 2B and the Middle Option, I don't understand the distinction between "Everyday Life & Leisure" and "Culture & Society".

Also, humanities are covered both in "Humanities & Social Sciences" and in "Art", "History" and "Philosophy & Religion."

Has anyone considered just using the categories from the main page?

Arts | Biography | Culture | Geography | History | Mathematics | Philosophy | Science | Society | Technology

(Although I'm still not sure of the difference between Culture and Society.) Maurreen 04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen, thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you shared your concerns. Discussion is needed on how to apply categories. The meaning of the main categories is in the use: in what subcategories are included.

Everyday life & Leisure would includes all the "informal" topics relating to living like: Crafts - Diet - Hobbies - Hygiene - Gardening - Sexuality - Sports - etc. Culture & Society could include more "formal" social structural topics like: Economy - Politics - Education - Language - etc. Having these two categories is a meaningful distinction and keeps a Society category from being very large.

Humanities include more that what you mention, including cultural studies, media studies, sometimes law, and aspects of other disciplines, like linguistics and the theoretical aspects of various art and literature studies could be fit there (not necessarily in art) -- just as there is a society and social science category. However, it is true: philosophy and history aren't needed in the 2B outline.

One definition of culture is symbolic (and material) tools, actions and relations (which is pretty much our whole social world) and one definition of society is the whole of our social (econ, politics, etc) and cultural systems, actions and relations. These terms are basically synonymous by these sorts of definitions. I put Culture explicitly with Society as sometimes culture is lumped with art in English Wikipedia top category sets. A mistake -- culture is broader and close to society. I almost put miscellaneous in the title of Culture & Society to indicate it was a catch all category, to include topics not in the top level. It seems that in a shortish set of categories that one needs catch-all category(ies) or else a good deal longer top level outline or simpler top level and more complex second level.

I added History as it is a common English Wikipedia top level category. I was trying to make a compromise between the French categories and the English front page. We could use something closer to the french set -- which has a better structure. History and philosophy could be dropped (as both are humanities). The world culture could be dropped, being redundant. This would give us long option 2A below, closer to the original french set.

I think we really need to avoid one word labels for all top categories as in the English front page. Some one worders are ok. I think the English wikipedia front page portal cateogy set leaves out important aspects of the world. Using more than one word in labels gives us more comprehensive categories. Designing a comprehensive and yet user friendly set of categories isn't a simple task! :) Anyway, what do all you think of this option?

French Wikipedia Main Page Categories, Revised: Long Option 2A

• Long Option 2A (revised)
  • Arts
  • Everyday Life & Leisure
  • Religion & Beliefs
  • Society (note: miscellaneous catch all)
  • Social Sciences & Humanities
  • Earth Sciences
  • Natural Sciences & Mathematics
  • Technology & Applied Sciences

Long option 2A works for me, although the 10 major portals that Maureen mentioned look appealing b/c of its simplicity. :) I think we need to keep in mind that any categorization scheme won't please everyone. Maybe we should come up with a few major schemes and then have a straw poll (maybe post on the community board too). Gflores ^Talk 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Strike the previous version of this. We could just compare a few long versions. That would make the selection process simpler. Working on that now. (comment below revised now) Vir 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Earlier notes, revised for comparing French and English versions of top categories: Yes, a group decision process is needed. Here is a simpler alternative, followed by a complex step: You, Martin and I are ok with the French version. To go into a lot of different alternatives now means getting into the use of short, medium and long lists of categories. That would involve a long, complicated discussion process. So, let's focus on long versions. I suggest we do a long discussion as a second process and especially solicit wider community input at that time -- though we can ask for input now too.

I suggest we look at a few long French categories and a few American versions (particularly from the main categories outlines on the Portal and List pages) and select which version to use -- perhaps choose among long 2A or 2B or a versions identical to French and see long 3 and 4 (being created at top link on this page). The merit in this is the French and English systems are already developed and accepted for front page use (even though there are important errors in the English system) in major Wikipedias. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The English front page categories and related portal, list and category main page categories lists are incomplete (and make a few mistakes) We can correct those (see categories long 3 for original cats and long 4 for edited versions). To me, the French system seems fairly well conceived. If we can't agree on using that after a straw consensus/poll -- then we can go on to the next step complicated step of discussing alternatives. See the bottom of the page at the link at the top of this comment for a list of various long alternatives. I'm glad we are taking time to consider the French system (and actually now improved English systems) instead of just putting something up there. So far, this dialog has been helpful in refining the way we might use the French system. So. Perhaps we can take the step to decide on whether to use a French or modified English category set soon as a working outline? (Meanwhile, working on a more long term plan.) Vir 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gflores, I would much rather go with French long 2A-B over the English front page (or portal cats or list cats, etc). These and the Britannica outline and Encarta for that matter all have a family resemblances. But some are better than other. I included the Britannica cats in the page at the top of this comment section. "The Earth" seems very good to add somehow to the Geography category -- perhaps even Earth Sciences & the Earth (original French is Earth Sciences). (Health & medicine or Life & Health or Biology & Medicine are a strong top level categories (if turning Natural Science to Physical Science) -- and we could add something like that in future.) At this point, to get something workable, I'd like to stay close to the French categories -- which I much prefer to the simplication and ommissions of the English top level cats. Vir 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica Main Categories

Note, this is what Britannica uses.[1]

• Arts & Literature
• The Earth & Geography
• Health & Medicine
• Philosophy & Religion
• Sports & Recreation
• Science & Mathematics
• Life
• Society
• Technology
• History

Revised English Wikipedia List of Lists Categories - Long Option 4A

The following is an edited version to the top level categories of the List of topic lists page of the English Wikipedia. A few of the subheads in the original categories are worded slightly differently: "Art" instead of "Art and Culture" (Culture can be seen as almost same in meaning as Society) and "and the Earth" added to Geography.

• Long Option 4A
  • Art
  • People
  • History
  • Philosophy and Religion
  • Social Sciences and Society
  • Geography and the Earth
  • Physical sciences and Nature
  • Mathematics and Abstractions
  • Technology

This page includes the original list of list categories and other related options (such as the English top level category browse and portal categories, given as Long 3A, 3B & 3C there) for top levels of core topic trees: core topic trees.

Note1: Glad to visit this. The above is similar to the French outline, with a few key changes. The French "Everyday Life & Leisure" category is probably more helpful than the English "People" category (which is a crosscutting subset of many categories above). It is an option to have Society and Social Sciences as two distinct categories (since these together are a very large category -- but that is ok). Following the pattern above, it fits to have them together. (Also, "and abstractions" could be dropped from math.)

Note2: A separate issue is that we can use short labels in table headings, eg, Math, Nature, Earth, etc.

Process & Proposal (nearing end point perhaps in this): In line with Gflores' suggestion above, as a first step in category work (aim: to get a working top level outline -- to be revised later), we can compare and select among a small group of long category options. Perhaps we can choose among an emerging best edited French option (perhaps 2A) & the French original (translation) and English option (perhaps 4A list of list revision above) & the English original lists of list categories. Both versions 2A & 4A might be revised further (or even merged!) through one more discussion. What do you think? Vir 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Response
• Long Option 4A
  • Art
  • People
  • History
  • Philosophy and Religion
  • Social Sciences and Society
  • Geography and the Earth
  • Physical Sciences and Nature
  • Mathematics and Abstractions
  • Technology

1. For "Art", do you mean just visual art, or arts in general (possibly including literature?)
2. For "People", do you mean biographies, or something else?
3. I agree with deleting "Abstractions" from "Mathematics and Abstractions".
4. As an aside, which tree is better than another is subjective. I doubt any can be more or less correct. Maurreen 18:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding your points:

Thx much for your comments. Those have helped refine this process and move it along.

Art: Arts & Humanities actually might be a better category name. The name was originally Arts & Culture. Topics include literature, Music, Theatre, etc per use in Lists and Portal pages

People, and all the categories, can be understood by their use (subcategories). In the lists of lists page, the intent seems to be biography. An some other English top level uses, the categories and portal pages, People grouped, as Society & People. People in this sense could be synonymous with society and/or mean biography as well. It is perhaps not a necessary category.

I disagree about all differences being subjective. Major categorical differences, such as leaving out a topic, entail major differences in perspective on how to view world. A mistake in excluding (or closely duplicating) a key topic is a fundamental design error. Minor difference involve minor disagreements and are perhaps related to small personal biases. Major and minor differences can be resolved *sometimes* by combining various points of view into a multi-perspective synthesized outcome. The list of lists page is an ok outline; it has some differences with the French page. The categories on the main English page (the one word items) make some fundamental mistakes. So, I am happy to have come across (or gone back to finding again) the List of lists page top categories. I think something can be worked out between Long 2A and 4A and even a combination could work. I'm working on that combination now and will include your input. Vir 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

English and French Categories Combined - Long Option 6A

The following is a combination of the top level categories of the French Wikipedia main page and the List of topic lists page of the English Wikipedia.

Based on ongoing critcisms and comments here, I've made extensive revisions to the last half of this overview page, adding more notes and options (which may be outline improvements): core topic trees.

For the following, I added "& Humanities" to Arts. I deleted history and philosophy as they are included in the humanties and history is also partly a social science. I replaced geography with "earth sciences and the earth" which is more comprehensive. I'm leaving "Abrstractions" in now for further discussion, but it can be dropped. Note that the order of these topics is so that those topics which are approximately most closely related (even overlapping) are adjacent. One addition that could be made here is Biological Sciences and Life (then changing Natural Sciences to Physical Sciences):

• Long Option 6A
  • Arts & Humanities
  • Beliefs & Religions
  • Leisure & Everyday Life
  • Society & Social Sciences
  • Technology & Applied Sciences
  • The Earth & Earth Sciences
  • Nature & Natural Sciences
  • Abstractions & Mathematics

• Note: one word labels that could be used in tables for the above could be:
  • Humanities
  • Religions
  • Leisure
  • Society
  • Technology
  • Earth
  • Nature
  • Math

Process: At this time, we could critisize 6A (see also look at 5A & 6B -- see core topic trees) and then revise 6A. After that, we could make a selection between say a French version, an English list of list version, and a combined version. Vir 20:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is progress. I adjusted it below as:

• Arts (to include literature, whether it is in the title or not)
• Geography
• Everyday Life
• Philosophy and Religion
• Social Sciences
• Technology
• Math
• Natural Sciences

See what you think. Maurreen 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea!

I came here after seeing this talk page show up on Special:Whatlinkshere/History_of_Earth. I think this is an excellent idea. I've felt that broad, fundamental articles are one of Wikipedia's weaknesses in general—it's easy to write about a detailed subtopic but much harder to pull broad themes together to write a summary article. I'll see if I can't spruce up any medicine-related articles if I have time. I see that History of Earth has been proposed for inclusion. Obviously, as the article's primary author, I'd like that, but I do think it represents the sort of fundamental overview and summary of other topics that might make it a good candidate for inclusion, from what I've seen of this project. If it does end up being included, hopefully it will be a featured article by that point! (I'm an optimist, and have high ambitions for this one.) Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist with this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear your enthusiasm. I also think that these core topics can be improved upon. Basically, we're just gradually improving these basic pages. We've started a collaboration of the fortnight which has been fairly active. You may also be interested in the Wikipedia 1.0 project in general as well as Wikipedia:Worklist, which are core topics for specific areas assessed mainly by Wikiproject members. You can add your name to the members list, if you're interested. If you have any questions, ideas, or comments, feel free. :) Cheers. Gflores ^Talk 07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's an effort underway to form a categorization of the core topics. See discussion by Vir. Gflores ^Talk 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Knowledge seeker, I think History of Earth could be a splendid core topic, as could be other very general history pages. It seems a revised core topic list may happen at some point. Regarding the categorization work that Gflores mentions above, here is one overview: core topic trees. Also, I have started working on some ways to think about organizing multi-dimensional (and multiple) knowledge structures, some of which are outlined here: knowledge structures. Vir 16:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I've always found classification of information fascinating, although I'm not sure I can add anything to the ideas you all have already come up with. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Category for Mythology

The project is exciting. The list of core topics a great start. One thing struck my eye, though. Mythology is listed under the category "History." Should that not be "Culture?" Sunray 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, but currently we're having a major discussion (see "core topic trees" above) about WHICH categories to use, and so most of those categories are probably about to change. Welcome to our project, we hope you enjoy working on core topics. Be sure to take a look at the fortnightly collaboration on article improvement, too. Walkerma 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)