User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 22

The Transhumanist	talk page	email	contributions	edit count	goodbye

[1]

Here are some topics I've run into that have no article written for them. Most are redirects to a (vaguely) related topic, or disambiguation pages.

• personality - (4/20/2009) the disambiguation page is bogus, as none of the topics listed are synonymous with "personality". The items included are either subtopics of personality, or belong in the see also section of a personality article.
• personality trait - (4/20/2009)
• character - (4/20/2009)
• character trait - (4/20/2009)
• mind mapping software - (4/20/2009) though there is a List of mind mapping software
• rough draft - (4/20/2009)
• list - (4/21/2009)

If you write an article (that qualifies as more than a wp:dictdef), I'll be very impressed. Drop me a note if you do.

I was surprised these were not further developed:

• Composition (language)

Here are drafts of articles I'm working on. Feel free to jump in and help:

• Outline

For drafts of outlines (I've worked on almost all outlines on Wikipedia), see Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline.

dir

---

Just to let you know; I have added the Canada Provinces to the Outline of Knowledge. I am currently working on them trying to get them up to being legit. I need help and thought you or someone else could offer me some assistance. ThanksBurningview (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I have now moved that page for you! :)

The Helpful One 09:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user has asked for this page move to be reversed - per the previous discussion at Talk:Nootropic#Page_move. Therefore, should I revert back? The Helpful One 12:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move to "cognitive enhancers" was bogus. Even the person who contacted you preferred the term "nootropic" in the discussion. No consensus on the facts were reached (see the discussion, it's hilarious, yet the page was still moved). I've added to the discussion there, with some solid citations showing that "nootropic" is the most common term for the topic. The Transhumanist    03:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me if we will be able to create Topic outline of Physics or Medicine or other subjects? -- penubag  (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in this reply, I overlooked your message. It's lucky I found it at all, as I only look on my talk page for replies (it has that nifty message alert feature). To ensure I see your replies, please post them on my talk page.

(By the way, topic outlines are now just called "Outline of").

Yes you can create whatever outlines you want. For example, I've created around 75 non-country outline pages so far in the main namespace, and many more in the draft collection (see below).  :) (And I've converted over fifty existing pages to outlines).

We already have the Outline of physics and Outline of medicine, though feel free to expand those. The list of outlines in article space is located at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge.

Non-country outlines are created using the {{Outline generator}} template, like this:

{{subst:Outline generator|topic uncapitalized|topic capitalized}}

Important: Please don't create outline stubs in article space. Outlines that are bare skeletons and sparsely populated outlines are likely to get AfD'd, even while you are working on them. It's better to create each new outline as a draft in the draft collection of the Outline of knowledge WikiProject, and move the draft to article space after it has plenty of meat on it. Before creating an outline draft, be sure to check that no outline or draft already exists for that subject. A list of outline drafts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge.

If you see a gap in the Outline of knowledge, and the gap is also in the draft collection, feel free to create a redlink for the subject in the draft list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. I've just created redlinks for some sports subjects I noticed were missing. (By the way, I'm about to create a new outline generator template for sports subjects).

I hope I've answered your question satisfactorily.

So, what outlines are you thinking about creating?

The Transhumanist    03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just jotted that note down on my talk page since I thought that comment was more trivial than urgent. You did thoroughly answer my question, however I think we should make the outlines more visible in the article. The current outlines are buried all the way down in the See Also sections. It would be nice if they appeared at the beginning of the article like the hat notes. (I didn't even know we had outlines for those) -- penubag  (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the hatnotes approach. Trials have had mixed results though - they tend to disappear from articles over time (some editors are against the approach and remove them). As the OOK grows, this may become a more viable option.

Thank you for the input!

The Transhumanist    04:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hat notes in articles are reasonable for outlines because they are like infoboxes, they summarize the article. We wouldn't put infoboxes at the end of the article because by then the article may already be read and it would be pointless. Also if it's at the top of the page, readers can be directed to a specific topic (if it is there intent) before they reach the end of the article reading something that didn't pertain to their intrest. -- penubag  (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Outlines provide a method to skim or scan the subject quickly. Also, it's the table of contents for the subject. It makes no sense to place it at the end. That's where indexes go.  :) The Transhumanist    03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I just read a bit of User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge, and it's proven quite useful so far. I'm sure I'll be able to use it to my advantage in the future.

Also, I think it might actually be a good idea to advertise the outlines, so the redlinks turn blue. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this looks really great. I've come up with two suggestions: One thing that might be really useful is advertising the "Outline of Knowledge" in {{Infobox Country}} (or whatever template is used). Another would be to figure out how to expand the lead without bloating it too much. The simple one-sentence lead is too short, but four paragraphs for an outline would be excessive. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a thread above, Penubag wondered if outlines could be made for medicine and physics. I pointed out that those already existed, and he replied: "I think we should make the outlines more visible in the article. The current outlines are buried all the way down in the See Also sections. It would be nice if they appeared at the beginning of the article like the hat notes. (I didn't even know we had outlines for those)."

Hatnotes would be the perfect place to mention these, because they are topical guides (tables of contents) for their respective subjects.

Anyone want to help with this?

The Transhumanist    03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless with AWB but maybe it can be programmed? Are the reverting users persistent? If so we might need consensus at the policy pump or elsewhere but I think I may be able to make a solid statement. :) -- penubag  (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objections are usually page specific, in the form of a revert or edit to remove the hatnote. Though I think I just came up with the solution:

We can convert your reason to a hidden comment to accompany each of the hatnotes. Instructional and explanatory editor comments are usually very effective. The Transhumanist    04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would you tell me which pages are having the problems? If 2 different editors do the same action, it carries more weight. -- penubag  (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that's good. Can someone with AWB automatically add that to all the pages or is this going to be manual? If so, is there a list of pages? -- penubag  (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a great idea. I will bang my head and see if a good idea comes out. I'll think of something and let you know when I do. -- penubag  (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for instructions, if we want a lot of people participating in this project, it might be a good idea to have another set of instructions to be displayed on the contest page that explain the bare minimum since some people give up after seeing a long explanation. We could have a friendly template saying something like "Ready to get started? It's easy... (short bulleted how-to list)". I think something small like that would drastically increase the number of participants. As for awards for individual topics, I think I may reuse my gold medallion coin but create a new image for the center (like a double helix). I don't know what to do for the grand prize yet though. -- penubag  (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea on the medallion. The Transhumanist    04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Sorry about that - I thought the talk page was moved also - I have  Done that now.

The Helpful One 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started on these tasks:

On all the pages listed at User:The Transhumanist/Country outlines, please replace:

The following [[topic outline]] is provided as an overview of and introduction to '''

(not including the nowiki codes)

with:

"The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to "

(not including the quotation marks, and be sure to include the space at the end)

However, the problem is, only 3 pages were actually changed during this - if I take a random example: Outline of the United States Virgin Islands - this has that sentence, but the topic outline is NOT wikilinked, like I have searched for in my find/replace task. Therefore, should I do this task again, and instead of [[topic outline]] use topic outline?

The Helpful One 11:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please.  :) The Transhumanist    23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! The Helpful One 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one was a bit more complicated, there's a list of ones that were done, and those that weren't.

However, some pages didn't have any find/replace changes:

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 12:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, another problem that a user has pointed out to me - see here. The Helpful One 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is now  Done - I'll get to work on AWB!

The Helpful One 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have done the ones that AWB could do for this - the job queue should run through the other pages and null edit them to remove them from the what links here (you changed the template and the transclusion needs to be force purged on each page with a null edit).

Thanks,

The Helpful One 10:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

This task is also now  Done!

The Helpful One 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've been able to get a computer! The addon is Update Scanner [2] I've also created an subpage where you can find other nifty addons. User:Penubag/optimum toolsets You might find some other nice addons, so take a look. -- penubag  (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no computer. But Firefox can be enhanced on this workstation on a session-by-session basis.

The reason I asked was because I'm writing the next newsletter, and there's a section on Watching tips.

That's a nice list. By the way, I've added a link to it in a hatnote on WP:OTS.

The Transhumanist    20:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to my subpage. I've always wanted to inform people of the tools that I've spent hours looking up and trying. Newsletter as in Signpost? That's awesome! -- penubag  (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the newsletter is the frequent project update I send to the team. (I use a mailing list).  :) The Transhumanist    21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while. Just thought I'd say hi, hope everything is going well for you...? Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done summarizing about six months of activity! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, got it (for the most part). There is one part that I don't quite understand, however:

"For each state AWB needs to be used to make a list of "what links here" specifying "List of x-related topics". Then filter down the list to the article, portal, and wikipedia namespaces."

Could you explain this further? Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've set up a list of articles that have gone through the filter: User:Juliancolton/AWB 2. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to get this prepared; should be done within the next few days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very large numder of these articles -- it is a standard format. Is there any consensus for your moving them to "Index of"? Rmhermen (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The moves so far are for gathering feedback, so we have meaningful data to report if a proposal needs to be made to continue. In this test run, I've been changing primarily those that correspond with Wikipedia's outlines - since they are linked to prominently from those. Readers don't seem to mind the new name, because it fits so well. So far, there have been zero complaints on the new name. The Transhumanist    22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly object to the name; however, I don't think this is a good way of going about making the change. We have too many disparate systems and too much confused organization already. Moving a self-selected sub-group of articles only makes the organization worse and without a clear rule or at least discussion to point to some of these are bound to be reverted, confusing matters further. Rmhermen (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this affect my AWB task? (I haven't started yet; just doing prep work at the moment) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't affect your task, that's also part of the test run. The Transhumanist    00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rmhermen, so far the alternate name hasn't confused anybody, nor has it caused problems, because it describes the content of the pages so precisely. The new name is much less ambiguous than the previous one and actually clears up confusion and solves problems wherever it appears. (The previous name was divided between 2 different types of pages - indexes and structured lists, which caused confusion when you wanted to create an index when the page name was already taken by a structured list, or vice versa. So there really wasn't much of a standard). Also, the "List of x topics" isn't the most common name for the respective types of list it has been used as a title for. See WP:COMMONNAME.

The reason this subset of pages was chosen is because they correspond to the pages in the Outline of knowledge, to show how well these pages integrate as indexes into the complementary navigation systems. To present them in context. These are core subjects, which should provide a strong example, and generate maximum feedback. And speaking of feedback, it's been over 2 weeks (the country-related indexes were renamed first late last month), and yours is the only feedback received so far. Readers don't seem to mind the change. The rename is a no brainer.

I think we should let the pages season awhile, say a month or more, and see what readers think of them. Then we'll know for sure that they're a good idea. So far, so good.  ;) The Transhumanist    00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded your query to Jerem43, who is our authority on the naming of various national cuisines. --Zlerman (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply copied from User talk:Zlerman

• After looking through the various links on Google, the people from Burkina Faso are called Burkinabe (Template:Lang-fr) so Burkinabe cuisine would be the correct term. The reason I never changed it was because I didn't know that fact. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before somebody had commented to "keep" the article you could have had it speedily deleted, but now I would allow the discussion to continue. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –xeno (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The Transhumanist    20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you have in mind for races and other contests but awarding medallions to some really dedicated users might be a good idea. And once you show how much their work is appreciated, they will continue to put effort and work hard as well as other users who see how much the work is appreciated.-- penubag  (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical schools include: Pythogorianism, Ecocentrism, Deep Ecology, Technocentrism, Anthropocentrism, Linguistic Philosophy, Physicalism ... and others? Granitethighs (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What page were you looking at? I've updated the projected outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge.

Not sure if the movements (as movements) should be included under schools, or under the history of philosophy. Any comments?

And since they are schools too, they would still be included under schools.

By the way, I'm preparing to ramp up the development of the Outline of knowledge, by bringing it (and it's many outline pages) to the attention of the Wikipedia community at-large. This effort will include the posting of notices on the talk pages of hundreds of relevant articles and WikiProjects. But before I can move forward with that, confusion must be prevented. I'm surprised by how many editors don't even know what a hierarchical outline is. Therefore, I've been writing a new article for "Outline". It has turned into a major project, and I definitely need some help on it. Any amount of time you could chip in on it would certainly be appreciated. The Transhumanist    02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Sorry I couldn't do the other tasks - I've been away for the past couple of weeks or so. I'm doing this task with AWB at the moment, I'll leave you a message once it has been completed.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 13:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This task now! :) The Helpful One 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ever put up entries like you did at the Template talk page. The page was clearly not an expansion, was linked to the talk page, and was put in two different areas. Such things are a violation of WP:POINT. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that it was funny, and I thought it might brighten up your day. Laugh a little, it's good for the soul.  :) The Transhumanist    19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ottava here; even if you think it's funny, T:TDYK is a place where people are trying to get work done, and it's not appropriate to put up a joke there. Joking with people at user talk is fine, but please keep it out of the project space. Something might be fun on your talk page, but on a project page like T:TDYK, WP:FAC, or stuff like that, it's just disruptive and distracting. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was interesting, even if it doesn't qualify under the DYK new article rule. The Transhumanist    19:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL .. my bad. ;P — Ched :  ?  21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TT,

I'm still around, but I haven't really found the time to contribute lately besides making small tweaks here and there. I started out at a new school 7~8 months ago and I've been rather consumed by the more rigorous academics here. Feel free to take me off the volunteer list if having inactive members is an convenience (I don't know if the messages are automated) or you just want to keep the list tidy.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your work in the outline project, but I'm not really active in it. I probably won't be in the future, so feel free to take me off. II | (t - c) 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey adding to this, I am still around however I have been snowed under mountains of university work for a while, spending what wiki time I have over at WP:TIJ. I am planning to come back at some point in the future, however probably move me to inactive for the moment until that happens. I have been following what is happening over here however so feel free to keep posting your messages! Well I graduate the end of this year, maybe see more of me in 2010 good luck! Dex1337 (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still around, too, but haven't been active for a while. I'm having trouble keeping up with everything I need to do and want to do. I'm like the others; I'd love to still be on the list but if you would prefer it to be just for active members, feel free to take me off. Kathy (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sure, I'll help out when I find a bit of spare time.
2. Yep, that's possible; simply delete the original article, move the subpage to the mainspace, and restore the deleted revisions on top of the new version (if that makes any sense). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes - well I'm not exactly an expert of it myself (last time I tried, I messed it up!), but if Julian's method doesn't sound right, then I know an admin that can do it quite well! The Helpful One 10:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably asking a silly question that is answered somewhere obvious but ... how deeply will the hierarchical structure delve? For example willl there be a hierarchical set of categories for Geography and will each of these categories in turn have a hierarchical structure if it is useful? Granitethighs (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question has not been answered anywhere yet. Thank you for pointing that out. I should probably add it to that section, as well as to the outline guidelines that are currently being drafted. There is no intrinsic limit on how deep the hierarchical structure will go. However deep it goes, the lowest level entry(within the deepest outline) will likely be an article link.

In answer to your second question: yes. The projected outline and the OOK itself are subject to being improved via the standard wiki-way: editing. As these are a table of contents system, they will go as deep as Wikipedia's coverage goes. Feel free to improve them with hierarchical entries in any way you see fit. If a problem results, other editors will further change them. For example, RichardF just improved the Culture and arts section of the overall outline. They look like improvements. If they weren't ,we could of course go in and change them and/or discuss it out with him. (Come to think of it, this means I need to update the projected outline with his changes.)

And the hierarchy will pass through connected outlines. Outline links have highest priority in outlines, so that each outline will lead to further outlines down the hierarchy. Geography could go quite deep. We've just found an outline on Cornwall, which is a county of England, so the hierarchy would flow through Outline of geography → Outline of Europe → Outline of the United Kingdom → Outline of England → Outline of Cornwall (though we haven't converted List of England-related topics and List of topics related to Cornwall to our outline format yet).

I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily.

The Transhumanist    00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TT. I've done a little work hunting hidden outlines and I hoped to get a little feedback on what I've done so far. I've ignored the indexes of articles that seem rather common (For example List of sexology topics) because they aren't properly outlines, but if those are also what you're looking for I could include those in my search. Perhaps a list of them should be collected to move to Wikipedia space, since they mostly function as worklists with red-linked articles and would be redundant after OOK is more complete. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, alphabetical topic lists are not outlines. I've changed the name of List of sexology topics to Index of sexology articles.

Good job! The pages you listed are outlines. I've checked 'em out, and they all look easily convertible to our outline formats. Cornwall, and other administrative subdivisions will need a new outline format devoted to them (similar to the one created for the states of the United States), but that's easy.

Speaking of Cornwall, it is a county of England, and presents us with a potential lead to more topic lists that might be outlines. It might be worthwhile to look and see if the other counties of England have topic lists. (Hint: to make a hunting list, find and copy a list of the counties, and then use search/replace to change the links to List of ___ topics. If any exist, they'll turn out as blue links on your hunting list.)

Another way to search for topic lists is by using Google to search just Wikipedia, and search for pages with "list of" and "topics" in their titles (the titles-only feature is in the "Advanced search" settings of Google).

I hope you find my feedback and suggestions helpful.

Keep up the good work.

The Transhumanist    00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind about the move. However, if there is consensus in support of the move from the list of psychology topics to the index of psychology topics, you have to create an automatic redirect for the list because there are internal links from other Wikipedia entries to the list.Iss246 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bots generally clean those up in a few days. The Transhumanist    04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. The Transhumanist    00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to move pages such as List of chess topics (and you probably shouldn't), please clean up the links to redirects that are left over: Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_chess_topics. Especially important are links such as the

• Monitor recent changes Special:Recentchangeslinked/List_of_chess_topics

link at WP:CHESS that you broke. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the broken link. Double redirects from regular links are cleaned up by bots. Fixing those manually is not feasible. Not sure if bots fix special links (which use the external link format). The Transhumanist    00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by moving it from project space. Those talk links are really distracting. I've hidden them (see List of mathematics articles (A) for an example of another index that uses this approach), but they are still there so that the talk pages show up on recent changes results. The Transhumanist    00:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have done this task, some pages were skipped - those without any changes.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just glad I didn't screw it up. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Transhumanist, The." {smiles} Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TH, thanks for the message about your post on the AfD. No more to say, I'll say it there, just thanks. SimonTrew (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: my talk page) I'm not going to change anything in my keep judgment. I stand by my argument. I was also notified of the AFD by the above. MuZemike 06:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous decision to move this to project space: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cryptography topics — Matt Crypto 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that discussion took place over 2 years ago. Circumstances have changed since then. The rationale for the AfD (redundancy with categories) no longer applies due to WP:CLN and the ongoing development of Wikipedia's parallel navigation systems. Articles of this type (hundreds of alphabetical article indexes) make up an important part of Wikipedia's contents system and because they are lists they are presented as part of the encyclopedia proper in the main namespace. An effort is underway to gather all of these into a single set and clean them up. This article now conforms to the de facto standard used by other pages of this type, and it is no longer the same page that was discussed 2 years ago. It has been reformatted to match other index pages, and certain self-references have been moved to the talk page. The talk page links are hidden, which also conforms to WP:SELF. If you have any questions about the navigation systems projects currently underway, please feel free to post them to me anytime on my talk page. Cheers. The Transhumanist    18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		To The Tranhumanist in thanks for his sharing some knowledge of
		The Fine Art of Wikipedia signatures . — Justmeherenow 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always make so many radical changes without any discussion or consensus? Whether your changes are for the betterment of the project or not, it's quite uncollegial to edit in such a manner. Please don't do that again. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is The Transhumanist, but you can call me TT. Nice to meet you.

The endeavor was bold, yes, but undertaken with care and caution. The changes were obvious improvements which closely followed Wikipedia's content guidelines. And they were done over a period of several weeks, allowing plenty of time for feedback. There have been zero complaints about the content (title content, as well as page content). The changes made perfect sense, otherwise, there would have been a great many complaints weeks ago, about the content of the changes.

In addition to reducing the ambiguity of the titles in how they described the contents of their pages, the name changes solved a critical problem with the "lists of x topics". There were actually two sets of pages competing for those titles: a set of alphabetical indexes and a set of structured lists. And the two sets were impeding each others' growth. Now that the renaming is virtually completed, each set can be expanded without running into each other.

Another sticky problem solved.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    09:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a draft template for basic outlines, like there was for the country pages? Or do I actually have to build Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of tropical cyclones manually? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Template:Outline generator. The instructions are on the template. Please let me know if those instructions are understandable or need improvement. The Transhumanist    00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme danger (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm impressed with how quickly the outlines are evolving. My availability has declined somewhat, but I will continue to contribute to the outlines when I can. And yes, I am involved in the tropical cyclones WikiProject. This seems like such a fundamental change to the encyclopedia, and yes there are gaps, but that's where the editors come in :-) . Good job. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Outline of South Africa, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of South Africa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ChrisDHDR 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, TT! I suggested that your query might be better posted on the Mathematics Ref Desk but didn't carry out the move myself, thinking that perhaps I simply don't fathom your having posted it on the Humanities RD. So, the move is up to you, while I'll just advise that it ought to be one or the other (or yet another, as I don't know anything about tree structure except this brief look just now), and not crossposted simultaneously, which doesn't give the respondents the benefit of reading each others' remarks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transhumanist! Could you please clarify what you mean by "We'll definitely need the rest of the awards in place before we take the project to the next level." What do you mean by "awards in place"? Are you referring to the creation of specific topic awards such as for medicine? -- penubag  (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "awards done", "ready", "prepared", "completed", "finished". :) You mentioned that you could easily make medals for various subjects (like medicine). (Though "Health" would be better than medicine). I guess we should start at the top, and move down the hierarchy if time permits. Here's the top of our hierarchy: the broadest subjects besides Geography are Culture, Art, Health, History, Mathematics, Natural science, People, Self, Philosophy, Thought, Religion, Spirituality, Society, Social Science, and Technology.

I'm going to guess :) at what your next question will be: "When will the "next level" be?" Well, there are 3 things that need to be done before we can transcend: 1) Guidelines, 2) Projected Outline, and 3) Outline article. I'm almost done with the outline guidelines, but we keep running into editors who don't seem to know what an outline is. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of South Africa.

To transcend to the "next level" we'll be placing or sending thousands of notices, and this could compound the problem. If there are too many confused people, they could conceivably join together and form a consensus based on ignorance and misassumptions. And that would be bad.  :(

Therefore, I've been working on a draft to replace the article Outline that will define outlines more thoroughly, so that we can point to it from all of our notices, from the guidelines, and from the OOK WikiProject and anywhere else the OOK is introduced or discussed. That article draft is our main bottleneck at this time.

Once the article and the projected outline presented at WP:WPOOK#Projected outline are completed, we'll start our expansion phase of operations.

The guidelines might take another week. I could probably finish the projected outline in a few days after that. But the article draft may take a few weeks (it must be impeccably referenced, and this will require a lot of reading).

I'm doing a little recruiting as well, and if the right people join the effort this could speed things up. But I'm not holding my breath.

The Transhumanist    23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've been itching for a new graphics project! (sorry I hadn't realized this earlier). I'll be fairly busy for a while, but I'll start cranking those out in no time! Also thanks for the status update, I'll also be happy to design the templates, if you need someone to.

Also, on an unrelated note, I found a FF addon that made me think of you, tell me if SnapLinks [3] help you at all. It can quickly open many links at once (screenshot)-- penubag  (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of text would you like on each of the medallions? Would you like to keep it at "Wikipedia World Developer"? -- penubag  (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should match each subject. "World" goes good with countries development and geography. Work on finding images to add to the medals, and I'll brainstorm some names.

1. Culture: ?
2. Art: ?
3. Health: ?
4. History: ?
5. Mathematics: ?
6. Natural science: ?
7. People: ?
8. Self: ?
9. Philosophy: ?
10. Thought: ?
11. Religion: ?
12. Spirituality: ?
13. Society: ?
14. Social Science: ?
15. Technology: ?

I'm drawing a blank at the moment. But I'll think of something. :) What awards did the Wizard of Oz give out? The Transhumanist    03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, started up user:penubag/graphics again. I finished up the math medallion just now, just waiting for the text. -- penubag  (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

x2

x3

Don't be shy. Here they are...

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question.  :)

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#What are the benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#What are the benefits to humans of using a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#In the humanities, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What are the benefits of using tree structures in linguistic communications?
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#With respect to the fields covered by this refdesk, what are the applications and benefits of a tree structure?

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers.

The Transhumanist    04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've received helpful comments at the various refdesks. Personally, I've found outlines to be helpful in terms of organizing boatloads of info that you would otherwise have to trudge through manually; we're a huge encyclopedia, so they certainly make navigation more convenient. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "trudge through manually"? The Transhumanist    16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I could have worded that better, but I meant that in, say, United States, you have hundreds of links in no particular order, and it's nearly impossible to find what you want efficiently. Outline of the United States, on the other hand, provides all the links in an organized (and visually appealing) manner. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comparison. That helps a lot. Thank you. The Transhumanist    16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Transhumanist, please remove me from your talk page message list. Thank you and have a nice day! Zvika (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick browse through the Outline of Libya page, and it looks good. Will try to have another look in greater detail soon, but so far so good.Jaw101ie (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I've been away for a few weeks so I've not managed to do this task yet.

However, I'm back now, and I am running this task on AWB as I type this message. I will leave you another message when the task is completed.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This task is now  Done! The Helpful One 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Hopefully those banners will help attract people to the Index WikiProject. If not, we'll have to keep trying new things until something works.  :) The Transhumanist    21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the ultimate goal should be for outlines on Wikipedia? I'm doubtful any of them will ever make FL-status, but should we build an assessment scale for the wikiproject? Just a thought. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about setting up a rating scale. Outlines have already started to be rated by the other WikiProjects they belong to (each outline belongs to one or more subjects, after all). On the importance scale of the matching subjects, since outlines are core pages for those, their priority should be ranked top - because each outline is the table of contents for its subject. Top priority. For example, for WikiProject Geography, the Outline of geography should be rated Top Priority because its scope is the subject itself, which gives it core significance.

Most rating scales include "List" as a class, which is ludicrous, because the classes are quality grades. The term "class" should be renamed to "quality". When grading quality, I would avoid "List" and use "A", "B", or "C" instead, but I would prefer if the ratings paralleled the priority rating system ("Top", "High", "Mid", "Low").

I'm against setting up a separate rating scale for outlines, because it is metawork. Just another layer of administration. It's better to focus on the actual work. But different people like different approaches, and so if I were to create a rating system for outlines, the quality rating would parallel the priority rating ("Top", "High", "Mid", "Low", "Crap").  :)

Just kidding on the "Crap" rating. Low is low enough. If it's lower than "Mid", the outline should still be in draft form in project space, where we don't have to worry about how crappy it is - they don't get moved until they have enough meat on them (that is, are good enough) to be moved to article space. So if you come across a crappy outline that is likely to get deleted, move it to the draft collection over at the Outline of knowledge WikiProject.

I hope I've been of help.

The Transhumanist    20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been active on the outlines for a while now, but I understand that certain country outlines are significantly better than others? So wouldn't that mean an unfair advantage for certain country WikiProjects? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The same can be said for different schools in a league. Like those schools with more students, better funding, etc. But yes, some of the outlines are WAY better. So how about this... When we send out the invites, if that's the approach we decide to take, we can skip inviting those WikiProjects for which the outline is already completed. What do you think? The Transhumanist    01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll need to have a criteria for each league? Or for inclusion in the "near-complete" league, which would be left out? Are outlines eligible for FL status? Then we could still have a league for the best outlines. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are eligible for FL, but I wouldn't want to see a link dropped just because they couldn't find a citation for it. And that's really what FL's are all about: citations. The FL people also frown on redlinks, and those are an integral part of outlines (the topic of a link is as important to include as the link itself). So that pretty much nixes FL as a viable option.

The outlines that are most developed include Outline of the United States and Outline of the United Kingdom (extensive links), and those with lots of picture support include Outline of France, Outline of Japan, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of Taiwan, Outline of Thailand, Outline of Japan, and Outline of Iceland. The Transhumanist    01:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the ones with pictures, I did each of those in about a day. So if the contest lasts 2 months, that's not that big of a deal. We could give the almost completeds less time? The Transhumanist    01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the more complete ones, the challenge could be to get those redlinks into well-sourced articles, and to get citations for the outline? It's not impossible, and it would give the average content contributor something they're used to doing. The outlines you linked to are looking good, much better since I stopped working on them a while ago. Heh, makes me feel proud to have done a bit. Well anyways, two months sounds a bit long, and enthusiasm and activity tends to wane. The MILHIST B-class assessment drive, and Tag & Assess 2008 drive both lasted about 1.5 months. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Country outline contest proposal. I suggest we continue the discussion there.  ;) The Transhumanist    02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have retired with only infrequent small contributions made during actual wiki use since. Will definately not be participating in any projects any time soon, sorry!. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 2 and 3. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done #1 NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Julian told me to ask you if you had any more AWB work for him, and to do some of it to help his workload. So, anything? NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's lots more. Though it requires me to make the lists for you to input into AWB's "Make list" feature. I should have another task ready (similar to the tasks posted on Julian's talk page within 10 or 20 minutes. The Transhumanist    03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, have retired from Wikipedia, for the time being. I may get back into it during the summer but most likely not. I have gotten to addicted to the game Combat Arms, and surfing the web, and Skype, and Twitter, hanging out with my friends, and being with my girlfriend, I don't have time for Wikipedia any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackadam2 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy life. And once you've acquired much worldly experience, return, and share it with us! The Transhumanist    22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To promote work on the country outlines, maybe a contest between country WikiProjects could be run, to see which WikiProject could develop the best country outline.

What do you think?

(I look forward to your reply on my talk page).

The Transhumanist    23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. There is less than ideal participation from the individual Wikiprojects and may only attract a few, if any, enthusiastic participants. Perhaps individually contacting and challenging the most highly active and participating users from the WProjects to a face-off may rally more support from their peers, who will in turn be ready for your next contest. But we're going to have to make this look big; lots of templates, formatting, and pretty colors. -- penubag  (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the notices were just posted on the WikiProject talk pages, they might not get much response. But I was planning on having notices posted everywhere possible, including to all country WikiProject members, to the talk pages of the country outlines, and to the talk pages of the corresponding country articles. To the talk page of the Geography and Countries WikiProjects, and of course to the WP:CBB. Actually, there's a notice for it on the WP:CBB already.  :)

Perhaps we should post notices and banners.

The only other place I can think of announcing this would be the Signpost. Could be intersting.

Wait, just thought of more. Maybe check the histories of the various country-related articles (country, "government of", "geography of", "culture of", etc. and contact active editors?

I like your idea of impressive notices and a big promotion campaign.

How much of a build-up period (count-down) do you think we should have before the starting date of the contest? Post the count-down on the CBB? (change the date-count each day?)

What if editors start editing before the start-date?

And what about Buaidh and I, who are already editing these things on a frequent basis?

The Transhumanist    22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Country_outline_contest_proposal, I hadn't seen any discussion taking place at all, but that was premature and I hadn't realized that it wasn't long after you posted there since I looked. But now I see at least 3 other interested editors, which is great. What we should do is make them sign up under a "participants" list so they feel committed to continue. We also need a centralized page for the contest (which will look fancy) with a huge count-down timer until the start of the contest. The reason we need a centralized page just for the contest is to keep it organized. I rather found it hard to keep up when there were countless user subpages of lists of articles. I originally had no idea what exactly the project was that I was making all the awards for. I looked a lot of places to find out but eventually became bored and just did everything you told me to. And other users won't be willing to spend the time to do this. I don't mean to sound bad or anything but I feel other users must have felt the same way, and the lack communication between the other users is less than ideal for motivation. Organization is key. On this centralized page, you can post your weekly news and updates; let's just hope it doesn't go to MfD. Anyways...(sorry there :) )..what we can do to obtain maximum participants is to reach out to the individual directly. This is a lot of work, but it will be worth it. "Hello username, I've noticed you've been doing a great job editing x and think you will be a worthy opponent in [[Around the World Competition]]. If you win the championship, you will be awarded a golden trophy and be titled "Champion of Whatever". I feel you have a chance at winning! Care to give it a shot?" I can help with recruiting a few people as well some of the other members. Also, advertising to reinforce the depth of this competition will be good to the user, whether invited or not, as they would feel they are a part of something important and big. You mentioned posting on the Signpost and banners in various places, which is perfect. Put banners on talk pages (which should be more invitational than of a notice), project pages, etc to rally support. Once we've gathered the participants, make it very clear they will be awarded even if they don't win but if they try hard and put effort. This might get rid of the bystander effect along with deindividuation (which in simple terms explains the phenomenon that if a large group exists, the individual is less likely to put an effort). Anyways, I'm just on a rant so just take everything as advice; do what you think is right. Also, I've replied to your transparency request on my talkpage and updated /graphics. -- penubag  (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work on the outline of knowledge has been decentralized up until now because it was essentially a proposal. Rather than posting a formal proposal at WP:VPR about making it, we instead just started making it to display it in partially completed form (i.e., developed it in place) as a model that the whole project will be based on. Why? Because how do you describe what we've built? It was far more practical to build it and show it. You can't really understand the outlines until you've seen and used them.

I tried the proposal process on part of the OOK project, a rename of the page set, and most of the participants didn't even know what I was talking about (they didn't seem to know what a topic outline was), and most of them didn't return to the discussion after their initial post (and vote) to read the explanations. Hence the alternate approach. And due to this, I couldn't post a centralized page for a contest on a project that was being developed from our talk pages.

As for contests, "Around the World" is dead. It no longer exists. That approach was thoroughly rejected. Burned with fire. This is a totally new contest concept. (Though we don't have a name for it yet). And rather than going straight to hosting and posting this new contest, we're getting community input, so that design flaws in the contest itself can be avoided, and so that any reservations can be dealt with and worked out in the contest's design.

Rather than individual contestants, the contest proposal is for WikiProjects to be the contestants. Formal teams wouldn't work well, because what do you do if a non-team member drops in and edits the page? The WikiProject will be rewarded. I guess participants could post templates designed for them on their talk page, similar to how they post their own userboxes.

Though the dynamics of the award process has yet to be worked out. But, tracking the edits of individual contestants would be virtually impossible - it would take longer than the edits themselves.

And since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries is sponsoring the contest, it makes sense to make the contest's central page a subpage of that WikiProject, though this hasn't been decided upon either. It's up to the group discussing it all.

I think the WikiProjects, or anyone on behalf of the various WikiProjects, should recruit participants to work on each WikiProject's respective country outline.

Just throwing in some ideas. Nothing's been worked out yet. But one thing is for sure, you and I need to keep fanning the flames so the fire doesn't go out.  :)

The Transhumanist    04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject race - I like the idea - it will hopefully work not only to complete the pages but publicise them. (I noticed the pages have all been WikiProject tagged) Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I've nearly finished the currency filling in task you gave me ages ago - it's been slow because I've been very busy and will be again very soon but it should be done in about a week.

Cool. Thank you for keeping track of the currency task.

The contest probably won't be a race. It will likely be a cake-baking contest. That is, judges will decide which "cake" is the best. There will be a time limit, probably a month, within which each WikiProject will work on it's respective country outline, and then the best ones will be chosen as the winners.

The discussion to set the details of the contest is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries.

Only a few of the country outlines have been WikiProject tagged. Most of them still need tagging. Please put that on your task list, right after "currency". :)

(Every little bit helps!) 

The Transhumanist    22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

For this task - are you sure that you have given me the right sandbox? That sandbox doesn't really have any links on it - perhaps you have given me the wrong one?

Thanks,

The Helpful One 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox32 (a list of "Talk:Government of" pages)

The Transhumanist    21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This task is  Done The Helpful One 20:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

This task is now  Done!

The Helpful One 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your commentary about the Outline of Organic Chemistry page. My original concern was due to the occasional punchy nature where often content will get deleted in the churn of creating/modifying content. This page is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, and its edit history shows aspects of that history as well.

I still think pages of this nature get deleted from the main-line content pages of Wikipedia far too often, particularly when the content shows some age compared to the fortunately ever improving content of the rest of the project. As my comment on the talk page is already two years old, even that shows a bit of history now.

Again, thank for the reply that I wasn't even expecting. That is a good pick-me-up for the day. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you out at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 7K more edits than I do, I don't really see how I can help!

I'm also unclear how the outline of knowledge will improve over categories. I'll try looking into it a bit, but I'm not really interested in a big project right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a suggestion for the design centre-maybe you could add a section on formatting your signature-although not technically userpage-would still be very useful?! dottydotdot (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Customisation
• [[4]] (WP:EIW)) which will link you to most anything
• User:NikoSilver/Signature shop
• User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Signature

@Skaterthealmighty:

I note you have been moving numerous "outline" drafts into main namespace (such as here). Note that these aren't valid article titles, unless they are discussing something known as an "outline", citing eferences establishing the notability of said "outlines". As long as "outline of X" is just a stubby fork of the "X" article, it is in violation of WP:CFORK and needs to be merged or redirected. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Outlines: I've replied to dab's thread at Portal_talk:Contents/Outline_of_knowledge#namespace_discipline with some clarifications and answers. Let's keep that discussion there.

2) Indexes: The Category:Indexes of articles seems to be redundant to the older Category:Lists of topics by country. Is there any reason these shouldn't be merged?

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied to the dab thread. As for the index cat problem, I'm on it. The Transhumanist    23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Skaterthealmighty: @Skaterthealmighty:

NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I saw your request on my talk page. I wanted to let you know I was not ignoring you, however I'm at Walt Disney World right now, and haven't had a chance to give you a reply. Quite a task you've taken on though that I see. When I get back on again full-time I'll make sure to drop in my $.02. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your input. Thank you. The Transhumanist    20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry I seemed like I ignored you too. I am having some serious, stressful business at MfD. I am very impressed with your contributions, but I'm unable to help right now. Like I said, I'm going to be busy on MfD until it closes, but hopefully I will return when it is all finished. ZooFari 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Government of Nepal, which refers questions to you, discusses Outline of Nepal. So why isn't that discussion at Talk:Outline of Nepal, so its editors will see it? Government of Nepal is a new redirect to Politics of Nepal, so I would think anything on its talk page should be about the redirect. Art LaPella (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I have a bunch of notices I need to post to the outline talk pages, and was planning to write and place them all at once to save time. The handful of people who edit that outline are busy editing 500+ outlines (and we're supposed to be creating 500+ more) and we're doing many other tasks, so we are spread pretty thin. We need as much help as we can get. The notice doesn't discuss anything, it's just an announcement. I don't have time to check back to 200+ talk pages, and so I've left my contact info for convenience. The notice doesn't preclude nor prevent discussion about the redirect, and is otherwise on topic (concerns "government of Nepal"), so it does no harm. It caught your attention, giving me the opportunity to ask you for help. Help! Would you please fix the problem on the government branches sections of the Outline of Nepal? It's part of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which serves as the table of contents and site map of Wikipedia. I look foward to your reply on my talk page. Thank you. The Transhumanist    20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only contribution to Nepal articles was to create the redirect, so I left a note at Talk:Outline of Nepal; otherwise they wouldn't see your note where it is. Art LaPella (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this message, Outline of Politics of Ukraine#Government and politics of Politics of Ukraine doesn't exist; however Outline of Ukraine#Government and politics of Politics of Ukraine does and I've updated and corrected it. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

The Helpful One 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! (or afternoon, or evening, or whatever time it is when you read this; I've never been any good working out time differences). You raised a number of points on my talk page, and so I'm here to address them.

Now, it seems your product's biggest selling point is interconnectivity (oh God, I sound like I'm on The Apprentice). Every user on this encyclopedia is here to improve Wikipedia (at least we hope so), and so, theoretically, every user would want to help with a project that coordinates most of the encyclopedia's work. In practice, however, most people just want to get on and do what they're most comfortable with. Because of this, I would recommend requesting help form the relevant WikiProject for each Outline page. If you market (there I go again) the Outline as not only a way to improve readers' knowledge about a particular subject, but also to help recruit editors for that WikiProject, I'm sure they'ld (is that a word?) be willing to help. That said, there will, of course, be a number of editors who would want to help with all aspects, and so placing an ad wouldn't hurt. I suspect that most people who would want to help with this type of project would be WikiGnomes, and so keep on the lookout for behind-the-scenes workers. Finally, a notice or two at the the Village Pump wouldn't go amiss.

Stay tuned for more in this brand new series about advice for the accompanying webpage.

Next time: Weebiloobil thrillingly details the improvements that could be made to User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge.

Presented by: weebiloobil (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the driving force behind the Outline of Knowledge project, this AN thread about people complaining about (and threatening to AFD/MFD) much of the project will be of great interest to you. Could you please comment there please? NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TH. I'm sorry I haven't responded to your earlier request for help. Off-wiki I have been busy with real life, and on-wiki I have been trying to clear up a backlog of projects I've already started (and never finished) before adding more to my plate. Then I noticed the same WP:AN discussion that NW pointed out, and I thought I'd better let you know since I hadn't seen any responses yet from you there. I really resent the implication that the OoK is a "shadow" version of Wikipedia. Obviously the people commenting aren't familiar with it and are just freaking out because of the negatively hyped initial info. It would be good for someone with your knowledge of the project to add their thoughts. Hope your weekend goes well otherwise! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread was archived before I read my messages this morning. Oh well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. But enough people understand what the OOK is, that I'm not too worried about it. Though it looks like a good idea to address the points that were presented in that discussion, in case they come up again. Thank you for the heads up guys. The Transhumanist    19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peeking over shoulder comments. Re your sandboxed "OOK update", I strongly recommend moving the outline guideline draft into projectspace (still as a draft) - Many people are hesitant to edit userspace subpages; it seems a bit furtive, somehow. I'll try to add some comments to the talkpages soon.

Re dab's thread at AN: He took part (made 2 comments) in the last discussion about which namespace these belong in (when they were called Lists of basic topics - Oct/Nov 2007) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contents/Archive 4#Contents pages, and lists of lists, so he shouldn't really have been so surprised, but he might have forgotten, or not seen the Lists of basic topics even then. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have disassembled the Category:Topical indexes, and reconstructed it at Category:Indexes of articles: However, Mathbot is still repopulating the 1st category. You break it, you buy it! (But please disassemble the old structure entirely).

I think you're repurposing some of the topic lists as outlines: You should take a read through Category talk:Topical indexes, which I wrote whilst initially populating the Topical indexes category. Might help with something or other. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. The guideline draft is still being composed, and won't be ready to propose until it is completed. It's 90% done, so it shouldn't take me too much longer.

DAB was out of line, and because of this he is discrediting himself. First, he mistakenly stated that outlines were being moved from portal space, and second he used rhetoric at WP:AN which came off like Chicken Little crying "the sky is falling!" His negative hype was not appreciated by many, and appeared to piss some people off. Fortunately, level heads prevailed.

I've recategorized topic lists that are structured lists as outlines. They enable the same type of browsing as the outlines do, and differ from alphabetical indexes in the same way that outlines do. And most of them look like they can and should be converted to outlines or merged into existing outlines. Look over Category:Outlines, and you'll see that they match the type of pages listed. Let me know if you think they do not fit. There's a little more to do to clean up the list category tree, and I will get to it as time allows.

The Transhumanist    21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking over the index categories, and I agree with your repurposing of some of those topics lists as outlines.

To clarify: I mean that the draft guideline should be moved immediately, and completed in projectspace, before proposing it formally. This isn't a personal project, it is a Wikiproject, so the whole team should have equal-appearing access to changing it.

If you want more participation in the whole endeavor, from folks well-versed in our meta-structures, I don't think the folks at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles or Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team have been invited yet. I would invite them myself, but I'm still not a firm believer in the scope of the project that you envisage ("outline of the history of the state of ..." is a step or 2 too far, currently, imho), hence recommend that you or someone else write the invite/explanations instead. Cheers. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with moving the draft until I've completed the writing I have left to do. Once I sit down to do it, it probably won't take more than a day or two.

Note that I haven't been developing the outline down that deep. Those state historical outlines were developed last July by an editor (User:Buaidh) not associated with the WikiProject - just another list builder working on topics that interested him (it's the Wiki-way). I just pulled those in when I discovered them 2 months ago (March 11). It made no sense to leave them orphaned from the OOK when they were clearly outlines. But they were way off the tree (!), so the next day I created state outlines which they could link off from, and Buaidh started working on those and on our country outlines. In fact, he has become one of the most prolific developers of currently existing outlines. So this has worked out well.

My personal view is that we shouldn't take the Geography branch any deeper until we buff up some of the other branches (because the OOK is currently geography-heavy - we did this purposely to bulk up the OOK, but now it's time to add more body to the rest of it).

I'm trying to delegate existing outlines off to the Wikipedia community, so I can get back to work on creating new ones - one of our notices caught Dab's attention, but attracting detractors is an unavoidable risk of advertising.  :)

Concerning scope, I don't believe we should limit the scope as a matter of policy (as that might dissuade editors like Buaidh interested in a particular subject), but rather we should encourage development of the top levels until they are well done, before emphasizing going any deeper.

I've been pushing the refinement of our current set of outlines, and they have been improving steadily. We've also been gathering the names of lists that are actually outlines, and will be converting the most core of those over before focusing on creating many new outlines.

Quality level (e.g. "no redlinks") seems to be a big concern with some editors, but I see that as lunacy. To keep the pages as drafts in project space until they are complete (or all the expansion links turn blue) means hiding them from the very people who are most likely to complete them (Wikipedians). The Transhumanist    00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on the redlinks. Should be decided by relevant experts/wikiprojecters, case by case.

You'd said in your 'update', "I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming." My suggestion of moving the wikiproject's guideline draft into wikiproject-space, was meant to help explain, and correct, the lack of other editor's editing WP:OOK. The article on outlines is your own thing, and you can edit it in userspace forever (and invite participation on it there), but the wikiproject's guideline seems more like it belongs to everyone who has ever influenced it.

That's actually my main suggestion for the guideline. Point out a little of it's own history, somewhere. On the talkpage, if nothing else. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered a OOK-related proposal at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. Since the guideline needs to be on display now (you were right), I've moved it to a subpage of the OOK WikiProject. The Transhumanist    04:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the project, and will say so as necessary--I just commented at the VP. But I do not think posting additional notices at this point is a good idea. We should be editing current outlines before we get involved with more. DGG (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones mentioned in the update, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them. The Transhumanist    00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This task is now  Done!

Thanks,

The Helpful One 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been thinking about the matter of spreading the OoK to editors all over Wikipedia; it is quite a detailed navigation system and can definitely help users to look for what they want to find. I'm aware that this undertaking is no minor one; spreading awareness about this project across Wikipedia is not easy. Thus, I advise you to perhaps ask for help from every avilable source. The WikiAd a good place to start, if you haven't already tried it. Then there comes the arduous task of asking others to inform their acquaintances around Wikipedia. It's slow, but it works nevertheless. Finally, I suggest that you try to ask the Admins for help; they might have something up their sleeves. If all else fails, perhaps you can try the advertisement space they usually reserve for the big projects, like the pop up box they design for donations (the ones at the top of your page, during the donation periods). You can also create cards and userboxes (how do you like to search Wiki easily and hassle free??--not a good slogan, but you get the idea of what to put on the cards/userboxes) and put it on your talk page, send it to your acquaintances and ask them to send it to theirs; it's so much easier than to send a message over and over again. Plus, cards are better at grabbing people's attention, especially if it's particularly neat.

Concerning your outline details, I see no particular flaw there; it seems to be quite detailed, if not a little too detailed. I'm sure you'll be able to pinpoint anything you missed out when more and more people use it; they each tend to have their own preferences and dislikes, so I think you'll be able to change the outline based on their...er...complaints. As for now, I can't help much, sorry about that.

As for your contest, you might want to first think about what the winners will get. Since it's a contest, there must obviously be a winner and therefore a prize of sorts. It must be highly esteemed by the community, too. Usually, something like a major announcement of the contest and the prize must be made. The winner might get special praise and recognition from someone high up in the community (The Administrators of the Wikipedia community recognizes this user for his/her outstanding contibution in the...) or perhaps even a special note of thanks from Mr. Jimmy Wales himself! I'm sure that one of either would be very much sought-after, and if you can somehow manage both, there will be, no doubt, a warm response from the society. That said, you must then proceed to advertise this project/contest and to make full effect, I suggest you take it to the highest possible person in charge; that will certainly make it a big thing almost immediately if you get a green light from the person in charge. Naturally, you'll want a judge (or judges, since there'll be many contributors if you've made it known to the community and you'll need to go through all their edits). Then you'll need to make a page for them to register themselves (the editors who are interested) and then give them a time limit, say...you tell them in advance the day on which they have to register themselves, then on that day, make the page. The editor who has the most edits and made the best articles in 48 hours (so on, so forth) will win. Or perhaps you just give them a time limit of 48 hours from the time of their registration (give them a week to register) then judge their works; Wikipedians come from all over the world and have different time zones, so one particular time of the day will not appeal to everybody. As for how it should go, perhaps you can get them to see who can write the most detailed and reliable article about a parituclar country, perhaps even more than one article in the time limit given to them.

Whew. Well, I hope I have cleared some of your doubts, even if it's just a little. Glad to help you. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 11:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry for the late reply; I'm pretty busy of late and I am using an old computer now, so I try not to log in as much as possible, for fear of slowing it down. And I don't come online that often anymore either, so pardon me if my replies are a little late. I'll try to log in once a week to check on my mails, so do send me a message if you need help. I'm too lazy to archive my talk page too, so it's a little too cluttered now...sob. Anyways, peace and out. =)