X!'s Edit Counter
[1] [2]
{{WikiProject talkheader}}
SiteDelta
Update Scanner [3]
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox41}}
http://chat.carleton.ca/~tcstewar/grooks/grooks.html
Quick nav
dir
[edit] Re: Hatnotes
If you're having troubles with a hatnote at the tope of the page, why don't you add it further down, in the See Also section, as with Exercise. This doesn't draw quite as much attention, but does help improve awareness of the outline system, and will probably be noticed by most editors interested in the topic. Also, since the link is less prominent, there should be fewer concerns over quality. I would also suggest adding a note on the Talk page - or perhaps a template to be placed with the Project boxes - to advertise the article's relevant outline and suggest editors contribute. For example:
- This article has been flagged by WP:WPOOK as a central topic, and as such has an outline which can be found at Outline of topic. Please help contribute to this outline in order to increase coverage of this topic.
Creating a template with this (or similar) text and a variable link would make it easy for Project members to tag articles, and since many highly important topics would be included, awareness should rapidly improve. Making a template shouldn't be hard if you study some existing project boxes first - in fact, I would be happy to make one for you if you want.
I hope these suggestions help! If you need any more suggestions, let me know at my Talk page. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've been placing the "main" links to outlines in the see also sections of the corresponding articles, including the one at Exercise#See also. :)
- See the banner at the top of Talk:Exercise. We placed that banner at the top of all corresponding subject talk pages about 3 weeks ago. It's a template, so any improvements to it will show up on all the pages it is displayed on.
- Your suggestions are reassuring. It's nice to see we're on the right track.
- And yes, any other ideas you come up with, please keep firing 'em at me.
- I'll have more questions for you soon.
- The Transhumanist 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I was just wondering what you meant by "advanced wiki-tools" on the project page? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 23:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:AWB (for automated batch work), WP:WikEd (a more powerful wiki-edit window), WP:LINKY (preloads pages into tabs for speeding up manual batch work), and Regex (programmable search/replace feature in AWB and m:User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Regex menu framework - the latter is an add-on to Wikipedia's standard edit window). Template substitution tricks (e.g., using nested templates). Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia. And other tricks and techniques. See also WP:OTS. And I encourage all our team members to get a WP:BOT account (2 have them so far). The Transhumanist 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- I have AWB access, and I also use WikEd. How do I get a bot accoutn without actually having a written bot to propose though? Also, what can I get started on with the tools I do have? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure I understand your question. AWB can be activated into a bot, so you don't have to write your own bot program. To get an AWB bot account requires writing a proposal, but that's easy if you know someone who has been through the process. The easiest way is to propose a bot for a standard task. Both Juliancolton and Thehelpfulone will be glad to help. In the meantime...
-
-
- Ah, good, you use Firefox! I need you to install the WP:LINKY add-on (very easy). WikEd is twice as powerful when using Linky.
-
-
- I also would like you to boost the power of the regular edit window. Go to "my preferences", click on "Gadgets", and activate the regex menu. You'll only see it when you have WikEd deactivated.
-
-
- The next step is to enhance your account with some scripts. Go to WP:OTS#Super fast upgrade and follow the insructions there. It includes WikEd, so remove that part of the code from the copy/paste before you save. The Watchlist sorter is the main one we're after here, as it makes your watchlist much easier to use, by displaying results by namespace.
-
-
- Let me know how this goes.
-
-
- I'll be sending you your first (WikEd/Linky) task soon.
-
-
- The Transhumanist 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Re: your message to me about list notability (aka "list of things that are green" )
Hi, sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, I had to take a little break as I was spending too much time on Wikipedia. I've decided to stay out of the list issue for the moment, as there is obviously something I'm missing. Plus I've let my personal opinions on what should be allowed on Wikipedia cloud my judgment somewhat.
As for Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge... wow! Had no idea that existed. But it really sort of pulls everything together and makes it much easier to find something if someone doesn't know precisely what they are looking for (or just wants to browse a topic without having to track down the 100 articles related to it). There should be a link to that on the main page. --Susan118 talk 16:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. But where on the main page would we put it? The Transhumanist 21:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- That handy "Welcome to Wikipedia" box on the top of the main page could be a good place. Or, maybe even a link on the sidebar, for people like me who tend to forget the main page exists half the time--Susan118 talk 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the outline project, sorry I didn't get to reply sooner, but my internet connection has been flaking out on me the last week or so. So I haven't gotten to look at everything, but I have to say I was fascinated that there is an Outline of chocolate. :) Actually that is a good example of why the outlines are useful. I might want to read about chocolate, but not realize there are actually 50 (OK, so I didn't actually count them) articles related to chocolate; for example I would never have thought to look up International Cocoa Initiative (not previously knowing it existed), but thanks to the outline I can see that and all the other articles related to chocolate. So yeah this is definitely something that would be useful to have on the main page.--Susan118 talk 01:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hatnotes
Personally i never use them but i would say basically look you are trying to make it better and they are trying to make it worse. go ahead and make them and make the article better if you think it is appropriate go do it you are bound to get people who then say oh that is not wp this or wp that my view is always does this make the article better? if it does, make it better. Wikipedia is not finished and wikipedia is not perfect. We need people to make it BETTER. and if you think that makes it better, then good for you make it better. the deletionists will say oh it is not quite right or something who gives a shit it is the readers who matter does this make it better for them? SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- BTW I do not use any automated tools. I don't obkject to them and have thanked people who have cleaned up silly typos and that kind of stuff in my editing, just personally I edit more slowly and by hand and that kind of editing you cant give to AWB etc. As I say I dont object to them they are great for clearing up silly errors but they can't catch oh this is a pile of nonsense otheretc. SimonTrew (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Personalli i find the hardest thing is doing the references i did over a hundred on Electric Car it is sodding hard work to find the things. THe article may be easy to sort but so many people dont put references or they put them badly or whatever and wow that was hard. I got two compliments from that. Then you would think after having over a hundred references in the article other editors might follow the style (as WP:MOS recommends) nah they just chuck anything in.
- I am moving in a few days but have mobile broadband it is cool so I should be around but if I am not don't think I am ignoring you just you know moving and stuff takes a bit of time. SimonTrew (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the comments. WP:LINKY speeds up manual editing by loading subwindows (tabs) with the pages you want to view or work on. Then you switch between or blast through (work on then close) tabs. I'll post you an example of the types of manual editing the outlines need, sometime after your move.
-
- And I agree that finding references is one of the hardest steps in developing articles. The Transhumanist 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that your statement, "since we need the best linking we can to attract readers and editors in the first place", indicates a fundamental problem. Looking at hatnotes as a way to attract readers and editors is contrary to how I see a hatnote working. A hatnote should grab someone's attention when they first hit an article to help them find exactly what they are looking for (diambiguation being the primary purpose). Hatnotes within sections (see also, main, etc.) help the reader find more information about the specific topic. The outlines don't do that. They help readers find more information about related topics. Therefore, a hatnote is not the ideal place to include the links. I think they should regularly appear in the "See also" section of the article. If there is enough acceptance, perhaps a template similar to the Wikimedia Commons or Portal tags would be acceptable. Otherwise, just a regular link in the See also section is enough. I think if we try too hard to push this thing down people's throats, it will hurt the project. People need to see it in a regular place. They will click through, find the outlines, and learn that they are useful. We don't need to bash them over the head with them and turn people off to them before they even click through. Just my thoughts. Remember that it should always be about what's best for visitors/readers, not what's best for WikiProject members. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems counter-intuitive to have the table of contents for the subject's coverage on Wikipedia at the end of the article named for the subject. But placing it in the see also section appears to be the consensus for now, so that's what we're doing. Thank you for the input. The Transhumanist 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm...
I see both sides of the argument. I think you should list (not hatnote) the outline on the disambiguation page. Then, add a link in the "see also" section of the article. What do you think? at-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus seems to be not to place a hatnote until the outline quality is high enough. In the meantime, the see also section will do. I hadn't thought of the disambiguation page though. Good idea. The Transhumanist 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] I think...
...you need a barnstar for all of the hard work you have put into the WP:WPOOK!
- Thank you. It's been awhile since I've gotten a barnstar. Feels good. :) The Transhumanist 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] banner
Main blurb replaced. -- penubag (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you have to clear your cache. -- penubag (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think it's done! I'm about to be logged off today, but will post a note to the others the next time I log on. Let's see what the gang thinks. :) The Transhumanist 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yay! thanks :) -- penubag (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Outline of knowledge Outreach
I've spent some time on a mock-up version of our new user-friendly OOK page!! This page is intended for new users who will become recruited and need to know what's what. Our existing pages seemed too much to read to too hard to understand. This isn't intended to replace any of the other pages but I believe will be essential in welcoming and inviting new participants. The lack of a central page really disorganized, confused, and deswayed users so this should help clarify. But it still needs a lot more work. I don't like how I presented the links, because we have more of them, and we'll need to organize them. At least it's a starting ground. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Outreach/draft -- penubag (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've merged (and redirected) your draft into the main WikiProject page. (WP:WPOOK).
- Feel free to organize it as you see fit (including moving stuff to subpages or whatever you have in mind).
- So far, so good!
- Thank you.
- Good luck.
- Have fun.
- The Transhumanist 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I'll need some time for this . But it'll be done soon (hopefully)-- penubag (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Merge the History of California?
The History of California is a list.
Do you think it should be merged into Historical outline of California?
The Transhumanist 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. The History of California became so long that it was split into several articles and only links to those articles remain at History of California. Hopefully, the article will be expanded to include a synopsis of the History of California (probably by someone like me.) I recommend that we retain the article so that it can become that synopsis. --Buaidh (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good. See WP:SS. The Transhumanist 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Project
Good work my friend I don't think there is much wrong with it but it is helpful to post something on it a little gif or png doesnt matter what format so people can add it to their own user pages. Acually GIF is probably best avoided it is owned by um AOL I think (you know how these things change handsI think it is AOL at the moment) and they protect their rights to the format very vigorously. SimonTrew (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Try again
I hate edit conflicts on wp they are so hard to sort out. I was just trying to say you might want to think about making a badge you know that people can put on their own pages and usually you make a template to let them add that easily. Also I think GIF is still proprietary to AOL and you may wish to use a different format it is not free to use (stupid I know). SimonTrew (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- GIF is not owned by AOL and never was, in fact, all patents have expired. Wikimedia only allows free file formats and GIF is the only file format on Wikipedia capable of animation (besides aPNG, but the majority of browsers cannot render that). If Wikimedia also alowed proprietary file formats, I'd go wild with SWF (flash). -- penubag (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WP:WPOOK
Your first task is 
Y Done. What's next? :) MacMedtalkstalk 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WPOOK Banner
I think this version of the banner is a good one to start with. I'll give it the go ahead. So when can we start advertising the banner? Burningview (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay!, the banner's live now! If you view Template:Wikipedia ads , there will be a 1 in 184 chance you'll see WP:OOK! :) -- penubag (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Whats Missing
Ive found on the OOK portal that some of the branches of philosophy are missing, and they have no outlines currently. I'm adding the remaining ones and i'm going to see about starting a few of these outlines. Burningview (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ive took the liberty in creating the article Outline of Christianity. Islam is the only outline started out of all the religions. I'm going to be working on these religion outlines my friend. Burningview (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Be sure to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Projected outline. It's a list of all outlines: including outline articles, drafts, and planned outlines.
-
- Some of the philosophical subjects have drafts (or redlinks to create them) there.
-
- The Transhumanist 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity Outline
What's your opinion of the outline so far? Ive been working on it for a couple of hours now. Love it if someone could help me improve it more. Burningview (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help Burningview (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Im confused about where to put the movements in christianity such as restorationism Charismatic movement. Do you suggest putting restorationism under protestantism or making it seperate. Your doing a great job with the outline by the way. Burningview (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome. Navigation templates are another good source for links. Like Template:Christian History, which I harvested the links from for the history section.
-
- The Charismatic Movement is already covered under the Age of Ideologies.
-
- But if you are looking for Charismatic Restorationism, it redirects to British New Church Movement.
-
- Movements are historical, unless they're current.
-
- The Transhumanist 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Country Outlines: Non-Free Use Coats of Arms
What is the situation on the outlines for using non-free use images of Coats of Arms, it's just that I noticed there are a lot without images. Can they be used or not? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think it falls under fair use. The coats of arms are legitimately used under the articles for their respective countries, and outlines have the same scope as their corresponding articles. "Outline of" just means the type of page, while the subject is the same as for the article. The problem is there is a bot set up that automatically removes those images from all pages except the subject article. It has been slowly but surely removing them from the outlines. To fix this problem, we'll have to take it to WP:BOTS and failing that, WP:COPYRIGHT or WP:VPP. The Transhumanist 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] replies
Thank you so much for the barnstar, I appreciate it! It means a lot coming from you, but you are much more deserving of one!
As for the water, I chose that because I've had problem finding the proper article myself. I was doing a chemistry assignment and the regular Water article wasn't as comprehensive as Water (properties). But then I found out we even had articles on Water_(data_page) and Color of water, which would have been very helpful had I known they existed. But we also don't have an outline for water, so it may be better to demo a well developed outline. If you have any good ideas, just go ahead and change it as you see fit. -- penubag (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- That sheds light on your perspective... Hatnotes can be easily missed, while an outline formally presents the links in context to the subject of the outline. Makes sense.
- We don't have an outline on water (yet). But Outline of chocolate is approaching completion, and we're almost due for another collaboration. :)
- The Transhumanist 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hey there
You've done a lot of great work here but one thing with these outlines or whatever you cvall them,I like my wikipedia plain and have great trouble navigating it with all the colours and buttons seem to go missing etc. It is perhaps just me but I like just to be able to read an article without all that flashy stuff. I don't know how to sort that cos the aim of your project is admeirable and you have worked really hard on it, and that is great, I just find it personally very hard to navigate with all this stuff in the way. Please take this simply as constructive criticism you have worked very hard on an admirable effort to try to pull stuff together and I think after the usual grumbles you will succeed and make wikipedia better I just dont like stuff kinda shoved in front of my face.
- Which pages are you talking about?
I think I am allowed to do this on a talk page as for water I am a molecular modelling scientist for a company called www.accelrys.com. You will find stacks of free stuff on the website. Obviously I can't put that on a main page but I think I am allowed to mention it on a talk page, if not please excuse me. You can download our 3d molecular modelling software for free, well you are not stupid so easier just to let you do browse it and decide if it is of any use to you. There is also a famous article (not I think on WP, at least not yet) about dihydrogen oxide ie H20 which shows that it is lethal, causes drowning if inhaled, is found in all kinds of poisonous chemicals, is used by the US navy in vast quantities, is a major component of acid rain, etc etc try to find a ref to it maybe. I am gonna try find it now but I better save this message first as I drop a lot. SimonTrew (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax? :) The Transhumanist 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- No wonder I couldn't find it, it should just be dihydrogen oxide you only use mono- kinda to distinguish if there are others (as far as I know there are no others there are heavy hydrogens etch but not like two oxygens stuck to two hydrogens). Not that this is your problem I guess but I dislike it being called a hoax (and WP:MOS somewhere or other that I am too tired to look up has mention of what is or is not a hoax) I think it is a bad title. Like It WAS published (if not by this or that person etc) IS largely true and so IS NOT essentially a hoax. The hoax would be kinda a meta-artcle ABOUT that publication, not the publication itself. I think it is kinda odd to call it a hoax
Best wishes as always SimonTrew (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] First task fixing
- In User:MacMed/Sandbox01, this appears:
Computer science (Free software, Information technology, Internet, Programming, Software engineering)
- Does that mean that you want all the articles in the brackets to have {{main|Outline of computer science}} or what? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- No, it means that portion of the OOK page is in the wrong tree structure format. :) Parenthetical. These outlines used to be just "structured lists", and the conversion to outline format isn't complete yet.
-
- Thank you for pointing that out.
-
- I've fixed it. (Sort of)
-
- By the way, {{main}} shouldn't be at the top of the outline pages, because the topic link is usually at the very beginning of the lead paragraph. See WP:OVERLINK. (Though it seemed like a good idea at the time).
-
- Keep up the good work!
-
- The Transhumanist 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fishing outline
I am not sure whether I am making this right or not, so I haven't done that much progress could you or someone in the project take a look at it and give me some feedback, so I will know if I'm going in the right direction. Thanks, Vivio TestarossaTalk 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. Though I won't be on much over the next few days.
We generally don't linkify headings - it's one of the guidelines in the Manual of Style. See WP:HEAD. Links in headings cause accessibility problems for some users.
Use {{main}} instead.
A neat trick you might want to try for finding articles is site-specific searches of Wikipedia.
I'm about to be logged off.
Gotta go.
The Transhumanist 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Many messages
[edit] contest idea
Instead of a contest that requires tracking each edit for each editor, how about an outlining contest that would run similar to the Featured Lists process, except with our own judges? We would have teams (maybe from specific Wikiprojects) make outlines in their subject area and submit them for review after a certain amount of time, which would be reviewed on quality and/or quantity. This would get rid of problems like time zone differences and having to track each edit. One possible problem is that the subject areas are so different from each other it may be unfair if teams tackle easier topics to outline. (and how do we determine what's easier or fairly judge between different subjects?) One solution could be to have Wikiprojects of similar subjects compete. For example we can have Wikiproject Chemisty vs Wikiproject Physics, or even Wikiproject .NET vs Wikiproject C++. After that, we would judge the outlines they've completed (maybe with the help of Wikiproject Science for the former) and award the winning team medals and a trinket for their project page. There are endless possibilities.
I'm not sure what's been come up with yet, but this is just an idea that occurred to me a while ago, maybe we'll incorporate some ideas here.-- penubag (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is all that has happened so far: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Country outline contest proposal. The ball is in our court, and we need to take the next step. The Transhumanist 22:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but if this is going to be big, it needs its own page. I'll work on it and get back to you. What I have right above will be the basis of the contest. Would you like to comment or edit the page later? -- penubag (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] replies on my talk
[4]. diff since I replied on my page. -- penubag (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Userbox
Check out my userpage (User:penubag/user page). I have the WP:ook userbox on it! You can edit the box as you see fit here: User:penubag/Sandbox3 -- penubag (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] {{main|Outline of x}}
Just to say, I would be happy to start placing these on pages that haven't got them and the reverse on the corresponding outline. I've got nothing to do now I've finished all my projects!
Is there anything I should know about how to do them before I start?, I noticed some pages have a hidden notice on them: <!-- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE as it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for this subject's coverage across Wikipedia. Thank you.-->. Do they have to be at the top, eg. Japan, or see also, eg. Abkhazia?
Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ps. Are you sure this is the correct link?, for example, on the Germany article, a link saying
might look wrong, it's not really the main article, that's the Germany article itself. Would a see also link be more appropriate?
Pps. I'll start on the countries then move through the other main topics, it should be quick just posting links on each. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was overruled 2 to 1, here. Nobody else showed up for the discussion, and I of course couldn't (and didn't) invite them, because that would be canvassing. Therefore, the consensus is no hatnotes at the top of articles leading to the corresponding outlines, per WP:RELATED. That includes the {{main}} template.
- Now you know why watching is so important.
- Note that we did not discuss hatnotes at the top of outline pages, though {{main}} is redundant there, since the main article is linked to at the beginning of the lead paragraph, in most cases. And so {{main}} should be removed from the top of the outlines, because it is a form of overlinking. See WP:OVERLINK.
- The consensus currently is to place the link in the See also section, which is where links to "related information" goes. And since the outline is the main article containing related information, we can use the {{main}} template down there in the see also section. And so far, nobody has complained.
Then what's the task?
There are two:
[edit] Task #1: place {{main}} at the top of the "See also" section, in the following way:
Place {{main|Outline of x}} at the top of the see also section of the article corresponding to the outline. (With some help), I've created a template to help with this. Instead of placing the above code and typing in the subject manually, paste in this:
{{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox47}}
That will place the subject name automatically, and will adjust it for most cases of "the" and plurals (such as Outline of the Cocos Islands, and Outline of ants).
[edit] Task #2: remove {{main}} from the top of all of the outlines (including the drafts)
Thank you.
Good luck.
Have fun.
The Transhumanist 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] OOK Join Request
I'm sure you have it watchlisted, but I have considered your request and joined the WP:WPOOK as its 24th member :). I think I'll be completely done with the forestry outline within the next 10 days or so. I don't believe I'm as knowledgable in any other one outlinable subject, but could contribute substantially across a lot of related or semi-related topics (in particular I'm intrigued by research). If you have anything specific in mind, let me know and I will be more than willing to contribute. Minnecologies (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I familiarized myself with the OOK structure and policies when the WPOOK template was put on the forestry outline talk page, so I believe I have a pretty good idea of how everything works. I am also quite inclined towards making lists (see my masterpieces here and here), so I've read through all the guidelines pertaining to that. For now I could oversight and watchlist everything, but as the project picks up steam I would like to concentrate on the science outlines, perhaps even making a guideline for how they're to be developed? For now I think I will get started on the merges. Minnecologies (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. The Transhumanist 21:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
After seeing your wish list, I think you might be happy to know that Water fluoridation reached featured article status. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] replies
Sorry about this again but I replied on my talk page. Here's the diff [5] -- penubag (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also replied above-- penubag (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Userboxes finished and integrated to wp:wpook-- penubag (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I changed that section a little. The Transhumanist 01:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Outline links
I spotted and have started using the following template on the pages, feel free to notify me it I've done bad.
- For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of x.
- Posting this to the see also section = bad. That's because we are pushing for this to be added to the tops of pages, and it will detract from this effort if they are already in the see also section, because then there will be 2 copies of it on each page. I don't think other editors will let that stand, do you?
- By the way, to add the page names to {{main}} automatically, use this:
- {{subst:User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox46}}
- That places {{main|Outline of x}}, and fills in the "x" automatically.
- The Transhumanist 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it's just that I've already had 1 revert and 1 seperate complaint about using the {{main}} template Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I've done a few already so I'll change the ones I've done and start proper tomorrow Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've been given, by a very kind editor, a list of codes in the form of {{Main|Outline of Canada}} but he/she has already filled all the gaps in for all the geography related articles, their on my sandbox which you can find via my userpage Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SEEALSO states that "the See also section should not contain links to pages that do not exist (red links)."
- So we shouldn't add any redlinks there.
- The Transhumanist 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- I removed the subst tags from User:The Transhumanist/Sandbox47 and it now works – I think it's something to do with the way substing the parser functions works. Perhaps you could move that code to a template (something like {{outline}}) and then transclude it on articles without using subst. haz (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Makes sense. The Transhumanist 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will put <!-- clauses around the redlink ones, eg. the Canadian provinces Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RE: The categorisation task
Hi The Transhumanist,
Unfortunately I have been unable to do this task as I simply haven't had the spare time for the job! I'm going for a wikibreak in a few weeks too, therefore I think I'm going to have to postpone this task until I come back from the break!
Thanks,
The Helpful One 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WP:WPOOK front page
I'm happy to announce that it is now 100% complete!! As being complete, the old project page's material has been fully integrated into this one. You can always view the original at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/old page. Let me know what you think. -- penubag (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Outlines
You asked on my page "what are you plans for these?" just at a time when I'm feeling myself overwhelmed by all the different wiki-pies I've got my big fingers into....as you know I've updated/amended that page quite a bit and will try to do some more; one time-issue for me is in the course of repairing/expanding/honing it I wind up spending time on lists and articles linked and/or associated research and it's like a tree that just keeps on growing, and there remain complexities/issues with the structure/content that I'm avoiding for now, pending input from certain other editors (e.g. re the Law section, from a Wikipedian who I know is a lawyer...).
I'm not prepared to take on any more work, e.g. on teh other provinces - all of which are structured differently than British Columbia is, by quite a bit in each case (especially Quebec) and in each jurisdiction there are different structural/categorization issues that I'm not going to begin to explain here; I'm in Nova Scotia right now and don't know much about the place and there's no outline started and I'm not sure I'd want to get involved....I'm trying to have a real life outside Wikipedia and it's taking up more and more of my time....I can advise on the other provinces, when they come around, if I'm still around (and I may not be), but I can't really help much with Saskatchewan because I've only ever driven through the place (without stopping, except for coffee/donuts).
One shortcut I've begun to use in completing the BC Outline, also, is to link categories if there is no relevant article or list; and I think linking categories in the Outlines is superior to linking lists, as lists need to be manually updated whereas categories are self-updating; when there are articles, e.g. Land districts of British Columbia I've linked those; when there are layers upon layers of subcategories I won't, so Landforms of British Columbia I won't link to Category:Landforms of British Columbia but will have to try and create, or begin creating List of landforms of British Columbia (hierarchical, and not alphabetical). Alphabetical lists like List of British Columbia-related topics I find completely pointless, and also if fully complete would be MASSIVE; it's why List of British Columbia rivers is arranged hierarchically, i.e. according to the tributary tree.
Anyway these are just some thoughts; I'd meant to reply to you but have been mulling my reply as well as mulling over how I can retreat from Wikipedia to get on with my life, which takes just as much energy and creativity and in fact needs me to focus my energy and creativity on less mundane/pragmatic matters (I'm a musician/composer/songwriter in search of a career and a living...which I don't have at present...).
Indulging in cataloguing exercises is not really how I came here or what I'd prefer to spend my wiki-time doing; I rarely write anything but stub-content lately, but I started in here as an historian and know there's various articles that I'd like to finish contributing to before....disappearing from Wikipedia at some point.
I'll try and finish the BC Outline as much as I can before that time - I'm one of the few BC Wikipedians with the broad knowledge/expertise about the place to be able to do so - but I really have no room to work on other outlines, which means coming to terms with how all the other provinces are structured.....and lots more work unrelated to my core interests and also unrelated to my personal future, or personal ambitions anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. First things first: take a deep breath. A really deep breath. Deeper. Deeper. Hold it. 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... Longer... Longer...
- Now exhale. Aaaaaaah.
- Now repeat that 10 times.
- (A few minutes later)...
- Relaxing, isn't it?
- Remember, moderation in all things. Including moderation. :) (We all need the occasional binge).
- Keep in mind that it's better for Wikipedia if you work on this encyclopedia slowly and steadily, rather than in one mad rush followed by burnout. As you get older, you'll get wiser (hopefully we all will), and Wikipedia will benefit - but only if you're still here!
- If you are addicted, there's only one cure: an immediate wikibreak. Return only when you are able to keep it rational. You need to focus on what's truly important to you...
- Work on your career and family life. Those come first. And when you are ready, spend a few minutes on Wikipedia each evening if you can, or a few hours on weekends. Keep it within the spare time you can truly afford to spend on it, that is, without sacrificing more important things.
- Maintain your perspective.
- And be sure to write a song about Wikipedia. :)
- The Transhumanist 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] My awkward reply
Thanks for the tips! I will gladly join the Wiki Project. . . I'll add my name to the list just after sending this to you! Mnation2 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Links to categories
I'm not aware of any specific guidance. Personally, I add {{maincat}} whenever it is the only appropriate choice (usually as a sub-section hatnote, e.g. Lists of films#Filmographies), but it has less than 100 uses currently, so is obviously not considered a standard, yet. Rarely, I'll add a link to a category from a SeeAlso section. I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories or Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for more input, before applying it widely. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Personally, I'd agree with you that the category links (eg in Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia) should not be piped. However, I have no objections to linking categories, rather than creating new and plain lists of those categories (partially depending on whether the category is in a "complete" or "still growing" state, I guess).
-
- Perhaps we could meld redlinks with category links somehow, such as, replace the piped link to Lakes of British Columbia, with this line:
- That way the editor with no time/interest in creating a new stub-list can still help everyone (readers and editors) by pointing in the right direction...
-
- Other than that, I'd ask someone who knows more about categories for input.
-
- Oh, I also keep wondering about more potential uses for {{Category tree}} (or mw:categorytree). E.g. they work great in {{Infoboxwatch}}. I've been meaning to experiment with more of those, somewhere... -- Quiddity (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Bot account
eh, that kinda feel apart, primarily due to my cluelessness around technical stuff. I could use AWB to deliver the newsletters though. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- AWB is a bot. It just needs to be activated. And for that you need bot approval. It's easy! See:
-
- For your first request, make it for newsletter delivery, for the WP:WPOOK and for others upon request. That should go through without a hitch. There's a place on the standard form to indicate that you'll be using AWB.
- (Once you have your initial approval, it is even easier to get new tasks approved for it. But we'll deal with that later).
- Send me links as you go through the process, so that I can comment if needed.
- Good luck. :)
- Have fun.
- The Transhumanist 18:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S.: while waiting for bot approval, you can still use AWB manually. But you'll enjoy it much more if AWB is working in the background automatically while you are doing your thing on another window! They don't call it multi-tasking for nothing. :)
[edit] You're overwhelming my talk page
I would like to request that instead of dumping full-length reports about OOK stuff, that you do like the Signpost and just link to articles within your user space. This would be better for the servers (less storage space required for duplicated talk messages), make my talk page look a whole lot less cluttered (I'm literally losing messages tucked in between your updates), and it will make me take the project more seriously (as it is, I'm starting to get irritated every time I see a new message indicated and then another lengthy "spew" from you). I believe the OOK is important, but it's actually pretty low down on my priority list for my limited on-wiki editing time. Yet, my talk page is filled with OOK stuff. I do check the Signpost every week when it's updated. I think it's reasonable to expect that WP:OOK folks can remember to do that. If not a Signpost-style notification, then how about just a small blurb like some of the WikiProjects do for their newsletters? It still triggers a new message notification, but it's compact enough to not be annoying. Or give people a choice.
I don't mean to be rude or disheartening, but please remember that you asked me for my advice. So, here is my advice for how to not fill my (and others') talk page with copious amounts of text that is starting to feel a bit spammy. Save the talk page announcements for highly time-sensitive announcements like you did originally, not routine updates. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 00:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. I'll send you a link in the future. And I'll add a P.S. to future postings to provide that option to other recipients. Again, thank you.
- Thanks. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, what do you think of the new Project page? The Transhumanist 00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I second the request for less lengthy and rapidfire announcements, in particular the ===subheader=== ToC-fillers ;)
- Y Done The Transhumanist 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Re: the new projectpage, the header takes up 1/3 of my screen. Can we lose the text-as-graphic altogether? More when I get back from dinner.. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- I've reduced the amount of whitespace in the header and should be much smaller. -- penubag (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- The text as a graphic logo is still quite large and overwhelming. Also, it doesn't scale well or look good printed out at low resolution in B&W. I'd prefer to see it in regular text, using CSS styles to generate a similar (though not quite so large) result.
- As to the rest of the page, it is pretty good. Instead of "Why W needs Outlines", I think if the entire paragraph was reworded to answer the question, "How does the Outline of Knowledge help me?", or, "How do outlines help me?", it would pack a better punch. Only established editors who have invested time and effort are likely to care much about how something helps Wikipedia. On the other hand, nearly everyone cares about how something can help them. Also, be sure to continue to sell the benefits ("Selling the sizzle of the steak" in marketing phraseology) in the rewrite. Benefits are listed, currently, but it might be even more effective to restyle that into a bulleted list with the first word of phrase being a bolded benefit followed by a brief explanation or additional details. Bulleted lists are faster and friendlier to read and mentally absorb. Large paragraphs of text are often skipped over unless the headline really grabs the reader (which the revised question might, but why risk it?). These suggestions are established design and marketing principles that apply in any place where you are trying to capture a reader's attention and get them to take action (i.e., to become involved with the project in this case). The use of bulleted lists below the first two paragraphs is good, and probably partly what makes the first two paragraphs look blocky and dark to read (not enough white space). You've got good meat on the page, but now it needs the sizzle brought out a bit more to make it as effective as possible. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I suppose at this point it's all a matter of preference. I think increasing whitespace makes the page look more bulky and large, rather than trim, neat, and userfriendly. Also, the bulleted explanations at the top are good at a glance but don't sustain as much to the debates against outlines. -- penubag (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate it if you posted links to announcements on my page, rather than something like this. In my own opinion, that is simply too long for a WikiProject update concerning something that I'm not even that involved in. Don't get me wrong: I like to read the updates, but they simply take up too much room. Think about it: what would it be like it the Singpost gave you this every week instead of this? My regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done The Transhumanist 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] My bot
Could you comment on this? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done The Transhumanist 02:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Approved for one day. Got a list of people to deliver the newsletter to? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Y Done –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Approved! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, replies -- penubag (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Help !
Hello
First of all I have to say it is a great work what you are doing on wikipedia, realy.
Would you please check this website ( humansfuture.org ), it is a scientific, informative and well made site.
Long time ago it was spammed by some ignorant member and then was blacklisted by some wikipedia adminstrators here.
I tried to convince them to unblock the site to give it a chance to be used on wikipedia as a good source of information but they dont see the value of it, maybe beacuse it is not their field of interest or speciality.
Please I need you to help me and to support my proposal here to get the website unblocked.
That site deserves a chance, right ?
Thank you
--Xhuman (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like the website. It is informative, and after a quick skim, it appears to coincide with what I know about the subject.
- However, the site does not have a reputation for fact-checking, probably because they do not provide references for the information presented on its pages. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source.
- Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources to offset the problems caused by being an open source encyclopedia subject to being edited by anybody. Wikipedia's articles are only as good as their verifiability. Citations are the primary method through which Wikipedia provides verification. And cited sources are only as good as their sources.
- If the website were to include its references as inline citations, and those references checked out, then I'm sure it would be accepted as a reliable source.
- I hope I've been of some help.
- The Transhumanist 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your reply.
The website is not just scientific, actually it is more speculative in nature so how can references be provided for such a type of speculative articles ?
I have already mentioned in my proposal that these articles were written by famous writers and futurists including John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
Also there are more than 1800 pages linking back to the website including big trusted sites like about.com
We are not asking the wikipedians to link to the website now, we just want it to be at least unblocked to make it possible for the website to be used someday on wikipedia in a good way, thats all.
--Xhuman (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied at your proposal. Basically, if you provide sufficient evidence that the website is a reliable source and that the authored articles are authentic, it should be removed from the spam blacklist. The Transhumanist 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, there's an image of a man in a bubble on the website's main page. Is that supposed to be a representation of men in the future? There's something rather significant missing! The Transhumanist 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Transhumanist, I was not paying good attention when you asked your questions.
Please check the answers at my proposal and thank you for your guidance and support there.
--Xhuman (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WP:WPOOK front page and contest page
I've replied above to Willsc. above about it. I don't think the bullets are as concise as the explanations nor hold as well against debates. Maybe we need a hybrid? Also, the volunteer section should be working and fully aligned now. (just bypass your cache). I will work on the contest section now. But before I do that, the contest is going to be a Wikiproject vs. Wikiproject thing/"subject representatives" contest right? I need a bit more info before can I construct the rest of the contest and the page.-- penubag (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very happy that we're pulling you deeper into the project. :) Exhilarating, isn't it?
- I anticipate that the OOK will grow exponentially, and so we've got to make the core pages good as we can make them, to minimize confusion and conflict as people join in on the effort to build the OOK. Once these are completed, we can begin posting notices and invites concerning outlines for eligible subjects that don't have them yet (thousands).
- Debates are most likely to occur at Wikipedia talk:Outlines.
- The bulleted lists complement the descriptive prose that we have elsewhere (at Portal:Contents, Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge, WP:OUTLINE, Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists, Template:WikiProject Outline of knowledge (posted on every outline talk page), and Template:Outline of knowledge coverage (posted on the talk page of all the subjects and Wikiprojects that correspond to an outline).
- I've added a link at the top of the project page to WP:OUTLINE, the key page about building outlines.
- I have bigger plans for your paragraphs. They need to be picked apart, condensed, and adapted/rewritten for inclusion on About Wikipedia (accessible from every page on Wikipedia), on Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (a critical guideline that is seriously out-of-date), Wikipedia:Basic navigation (a key page of the help system). The OOK also needs some tips added to the WP:TOTD and Tips library, and one or more of those need to describe the OOK.
-
- re: contest
- The WikiProject angle isn't looking so good. Many of the wikiprojects have cobwebs. :( We will certainly post notices to every relevant WikiProject, and to all their members. But I think the focus will be on country outline vs. country outline. Contestants will team up by jumping on the outline they want to work on, and the judges will pick the best outline. The editors of the winning outlines (1st through 5th?) will get awards, and an award and/or award announcement will be posted on the talk pages of the winning outlines, and on the WikiProjects corresponding to those outlines.
- I hope I've been of help.
- The Transhumanist 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, so far I have to say OOK is a lot of fun, and now makes up all my time on Wikipedia. Since you have a better grasp on the project, I'll let you decide what's best for the wpook intro. As for the contest, we're focusing on country outlines only? I thought they were more complete than the rest. Well, when that phase is over, I'm thinking we have one subject area compete against themselves at a time. Like for example, one month we'll host the Physical sciences contest where each subject branch could be a team. Physics team vs Chemistry team vs Astronomy team etc could become a scenario. We would of course go to the wikiproject and ask which contestants are up for it. How would that sound? What should I base the page layout on? -- penubag (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I also replied on my talk about the volunteer section with a screenshot. -- penubag (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- The first contest should be on country outlines. Because of their sheer number and each outline's scope (a whole country!), finishing these is a colossal project in its own right, and will require the most editors by far. We have the award pics ready and waiting (which we invested a lot of time and effort into). And our outline development priority is to complete as many outlines as possible as soon as possible, to provide a strong example of quality for others to strive for.
-
-
- The geography section represents almost half the outlines. If we can handle that, we can handle all the rest in a single contest. This would make a bigger splash and take less time. Then we could shift focus to creating new outlines, and run a contest for developing their drafts. The Transhumanist 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal draft
Here's a draft, tell me what you think:
To Whom it May Concern,
A while ago, I was asked by a user to join Wikiproject Outline of Knowledge, a project which he coordinates. However, the index of outlines is a little hard to find for the newcomer. Therefore, I request that a link of this page be added to the 'portals' section of the main page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact The Transhumanist or myself Thank you, Tarheel95 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nice first try. Read Willscrlt's paragraph above about "Selling the sizzle of the steak". The same principle applies here.
- The proposal should focus on the benefits to the readers of Wikipedia, not its editors or WikiProjects. It's all about the readers.
- Without asking the questions, the proposal should clearly answer "Why should the Outline of Knowledge have a link on the Main Page? How would that benefit readers?"
- The proposal should also be precise as to exactly where the link will go, and show what the Main Page will look like with the change.
- For that you'll need to make a mock up of the Main Page with the new link on it. That's fairly easy. Copy the source text of the main page to User:Tarheel95/Main Page with OOK link, and start editing. Then take a screen shot of it and include the screen shot in your proposal.
- One thing the main page people probably won't go for is anything that pushes the rest of the page down the screen. Getting the header as small as possible was a major issue in the Main Page's design effort, and I doubt sentiments have changed on that point.
- By the way, there's no need for the formal introduction ("To Whom it May Concern"). You'll just be posting the proposal as a regular message on the Main Page's talk page. It's a pretty casual hang out. You should spend some time on there before you make your proposal, to get a feel for it.
- You have your work cut out for you.
- Thank you for taking the initiative on this.
- I look forward to reading your next draft.
- Good luck.
- Have fun.
- The Transhumanist 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S.: Penubag is our project's graphics and page-layout expert, and I'm pretty handy with page layout myself (I co-coordinated the design effort on the Main Page). Contact us if you run into any difficulties.
[edit] Question about outline quality and eligibility for hatnote placement
Is there any outline currently that meets good article criteria? If not, my suggestion is that we should make that a priority. If we do then I think we should start a collaboration to get it up to featured status. We really need a featured outline. It would benefit our project tremendously. Burningview (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- The people over at FLC don't understand outline standards, and outlines are so new that their standards are still under development. All the guidelines pertaining to lists that apply to outlines need to be updated, as do all the MOS guidelines pertaining to outlines. Otherwise, generic list guidelines will be applied to outlines at FLC, and on the OOK pages (which used to be called "Lists of basic topics" we've been doing things differently for years. Even if that were done, FLC has some standards above and beyond list guidelines that don't fit outlines. What is needed is a Feature Outlines department, and that's a long ways off. Patience is the best strategy for now. The Transhumanist 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- But if we can only put hat-notes for outlines that are as good as the pages, how do we define quality of outlines? --Stefan talk 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- For now, impression. If you feel equally or more impressed by an outline than you do by the subject article, then add a hatnote to the subject article. If the outline serves as an outline as well as the article serves as an article, that's pretty impressive. For example, compare:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The Transhumanist 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of marinas
I noticed you have edited
WP:Lists recently and you have a couple more years of experience than I do, so I am seeking your help/opinion on something I just noticed at
List of marinas.
Prevostcar (talk · contribs) contributed one 2h42m edit spree to the list adding external links beginning with
http://marinas.com/browse/marina/
for over 50 subsections of the list. I believe this violates
WP:Lists and also
WP:EL, but can't find an explicit prohibition, like "Do not add external links to lists articles". I am pretty certain these links need to be taken out of the list, but would appreciate your input and also any more explicitly prohibitive guidelines I can point to on this user's talk page explaining why these edits were not helpful. Since this is the only day the user has edited, it may also be a case of spamming. It also may have been done in good faith. I am surprised no one bothered to revert these edits but it's possible they were simply overlooked.
Sswonk (
talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help...
- Lists are a type of article, and they must comply with article guidelines unless the list guidelines provide an exception. The guideline on external links applies to lists. Read the first sentence.
- The situation you described is also a perfect example of link spam. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising websites.
- Nuke the spam, warn the spammer, and if the user ignores the warning and continues being a problem, report the spammer to WP:ANI and/or propose the site be blacklisted.
- Good luck.
- The Transhumanist 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Outline updates
Hi; I'm just here to thank you for the updates that you've been sending me lately, and also to tell you that I am more than happy to help out with the outline, though not directly, as I am too busy these days. However, if you still need my help, I'll do my best. Thanks again for the updates! I'm glad that everyone is doing so much to help out (and sorry that I can't do the same...=(. Oh well, keep up the good work!). Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 06:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] in comments?
I'n not sure what you mean, can you explain in simple-english terms? Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 11:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- <!-- These things are comment delimiters. -->
- <!-- The words between them is a comment. -->
- WP:COMMENT
- <!--{{Main|Outline of British Columbia}}-->
- Comments are invisible.
- Placing the "main" link in such a fashion is a superfluous task. What does it accomplish? How is placing an invisible non-functioning link better than waiting to place a real one?
- We need to integrate the outlines into the encyclopedia. That is, link to them from articles so they are not orphans. This is our top priority, because outlines are of no use to readers if they don't know the outlines exist.
- The Transhumanist 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- I placed the redlink ones as a hidden comment thing so that after the relevant outlines have been created they can be unhidden Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I think it would be better to leave them out.
-
-
- By the way, I admire that you tried to figure out what to do with the redlinks. Trying out solutions is good.
-
-
- And I'll try to be more specific in future tasks. 'Sorry about the vagueness of that one.
-
-
- Keep up the good work.
-
-
- The Transhumanist 19:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
See [6], the 26:th I put it as see also link on main shark page!!! I want a hat-note :-) --Stefan talk 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Compare that with shark article traffic.
- How can we increase the outline's traffic?
- The Transhumanist 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that the main shark page have quite high traffic, so we can never expect to get that high. I can think of a few ways of increasing hits to the outlines.
- Link to them from the hatnote, I will do that in a few days and then see the difference in hits, but I expect it to be maybe even twice of today, but not sure, will have to wait and see.
- Make the outline have more keywords that is used for searching, so that a not so specific google search might give the outline a high placement, while the actual page that the searcher is looking for is not as high since he/she does not know what to search for. Y Done
- Link to outlines from as many places as possible, this will increase the google rank. In the Shark case this means that all shark species pages should link to the outline, this is more than 300 pages so it will take a while to do, I will add the more common as I go along.
- Obviously put outlines on main page and to generally spread the awareness of outlines so that people start to see that they are useful and start using them and updating them so that they get useful.
- Put links on portals. Y Done
- Add links to related nav boxes. Y Done
--Stefan talk 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "incomplete" hatnotes
Sorry, do not understand what you mean.
Are you talking about {{expand outline}}?
If so, I found this and this and did what I though you (or someone else wanted), I added the template to the outlines listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outline_of_knowledge/get_to_work as Unfinished outlines. If that meant something else then I'm sorry. --Stefan talk 01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A hatnote is a message at the very top of a page. The hatnotes I was referring to were these, about the incompleteness of the page:
It's unnecessary clutter. And it implies that someday we'll be able to say with authority when the list is complete. But we never will be able to, because it is a summary, and summaries are by definition incomplete: summaries don't include everything, which is why they're called "summaries".
"Complete summary" is an oxymoron.
And by extension, so is "incomplete summary". A summary can be as long or as short as desired. You can summarize something in a single word.
The Transhumanist 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- OK, very confused, though YOU asked for a template like that and I did that, but nevermind. I cleared the text so it is now an invisible template, I have not removed it from the outlines that are beeing worked on, so the category still works. --Stefan talk 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I did? I don't remember. I think I need a wikibreak. :) The Transhumanist 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Finished outline review
After months of working on it, I feel that the Outline of forestry has finally been completed, and is awaiting your review as is requested on the WP:OOK page. Minnecologies (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've posted my reply to Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review. The Transhumanist 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Check out the new tips (I corrected some and created some others)! What you think?
By the way... I think you shoul use (if you desire so) a shoutbox! And I say that because I see your talk page is getting huge (comments like the previous one avobe can be placed inside it). - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . -- 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | Talk 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- And congrats on bot approval. The Transhumanist 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tomato
Maybe User:Tomatoproducts might work on an OOK for tomatoes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC).
- OK, I've sent him a request. The Transhumanist 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Would you consider the above an outline? It's a well done list, but it seems to be little more than a well-written lead and a list of links. Let me know what you think, or comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of skin-related conditions/archive1. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gross!
- Well, it's 2-levels deep (2 levels below the title). That qualifies as an outline. Though as a branch of OOK, it skips a couple intermediary branches (that is, they're missing): Outline of dermatology, which in turn is a branch of Outline of skin (but dermatology is also a branch of Outline of medicine, which we do have). And somewhere in there is Outline of disease.
- By the way, why is it called "skin-related conditions" and not "skin conditions"?
- The Transhumanist 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- P.S.: have you joined WP:WPOOK yet?
[edit] outline notice
I'd like to receive a link, not the full notices. Manageable? DGG (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. Y Done The Transhumanist 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Government section task
OK, I'll start them, don't know when I'll be able to have them finished though Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Just make sure you're not calling someone a monkey!
I'm ambivalent. I'm a strong believer in outlining when it comes to writing or organising knowledge, but I tend to stray from my beliefs. I've been staring at the main T&T article for about 4 years now thinking "I need to re-write that", and I realised about a year ago that the best way to do that was from the bottom up - write the daughter articles first, and use them to organise the main article. And having come to that conclusion, I've been writing articles about plants :) Just looked at Outline of botany...wow, does that need work. And outline of ecology is as jumbled as the ecology article is. Maybe if I started with a good outline... :)
Oh, wait. Is that intentional? Outline of knowledge...librarian... ook! If that was intentional - I am truly impressed. And if it wasn't - then it's still the coolest (b)acronym ever, and you most definitely should claim that it was intentional. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't remember who used OOK first. We just got tired of writing "Outline of knowledge" all the time, and it's the obvious WP:shortcut. The Transhumanist 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder: totd
- reset yearless year totds
- fix cats for 2006 totds
- recat 2007, 2008, 2009
[edit] Outline of Taiwan
Could you explain your reasoning for reverting my edits to Outline of Taiwan? --Cybercobra (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- This outline is one of a set of outlines on every country of the world. They share a standard format to make comparison between countries easy. If you remove the country names from headings and links from all of these outlines, then it becomes very difficult to tell which country you are looking at, especially if you are switching back and forth between them or browsing many countries. For this reason, all the country outlines include the country's name in their subheadings. It's been this way since these pages were created over a year ago. The Transhumanist 18:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't quite agree with WP:MOSHEAD: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, 'Early life' is preferable to 'His early life' when 'His' means the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated." --Cybercobra (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Redlink in a Hatnote
It looks strange to have a hatnote for an article that doesn't exist yet. "Index of visual arts-related articles" is not in requested articles and nothing even links[7] to it yet. Is there a guideline that determines when an "index of" article should be created? --George100 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I feel so lame not being around...;). I didn't know It had come so far so fast!! Anything Big I can do? at-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Outreach
As suggested and requested, I've contacted the Indigenous peoples of North America & US military history wikiprojects for help on working on the American Indian Wars Outline (as well as all of the other American wars to the US military history). I also created this page in order to coordinate wikiproject outreach efforts- as I tried to explain in the intro it would be very advantageous for the WP:OOK to try to garner support and work from an outline's pertinent wikiproject or task force. Do with or link to at will. Minnecologies (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
