Wikipedia talk:List of encyclopedia topics

It sounds like we'll be creating a lot of orphaned redirects (a redirect which points to an existing article, but that is not linked to from any other article). I've been complained at before when creating these, so I just want to be sure of the policy before I attack this list.

Example, the list includes Achilles Tendon. We already have an article at Achilles' tendon and a redirect at Achilles tendon. Should I still make Achilles Tendon (with the T which goes against article naming conventions) into a redirect, or should I just remove it from this list without making it a redirect? fabiform | talk 15:47, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, should the individual pages (Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics (01) etc) be moved and made into subpages of Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics or should we go through them and add a backlink to the list index? fabiform | talk 16:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think making redirects is wise. Other style guides, such as the one these lists use, may very well capitalize the T in tendon, and at some point it is likely a Wikipedia writer will as well. - SimonP 01:46, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to report a step that I'm taking, and suggest it as a general course of action. If I decide that a posted title is NOT encyclopedic, and not a candidate for redirection or disambiguation, I'll move it to a new section at the end of the page, without a link, but keep the title and add my explanation. I'll have a sample soon at the end of Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics (30). Thanks, Lou I 16:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just looked at your example, it seems a good idea to me. But would it be better to leave it as a link rather than making it text? If people wanted to check your reasoning, they would want to be able to click the link and check "what links here". I was wondering what to do with the odd entry which seems like a dictionary definition, so I'll do this too. :) fabiform | talk

Before removing it as a link, I tried the 'What Links Here'. If something had I'd either fix it, or leave it in the list. With those precautions, I'll stick with the idea of keeping the title, but removing the link attribute. Lou I 17:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's a good idea to stop it being an active link. People will always want to check other people's reasoning. It makes more work. I guess we can each do it our own way, and over time I expect one way or the other will become standard. fabiform | talk 15:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you tell us how you orginally generated this list? Just curious. ike9898 14:12, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too. :) fabiform | talk 15:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Me too. Why, for example, is Fart-about encyclopaedic but Fay Weldon not? <KF> 22:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think anyone is suggesting that this is a definitive list, and certainly not a complete one. I would agree that "fart-about" is a wiktionary candidate, and that we should have an article about Fay Weldon. But even if there are massive holes in this list (as I'm sure there are), it still gives us a list of several thousand articles and redirects which do need to be created. fabiform | talk 16:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The lists should be filtered against Wikipedia articles in a case-insensitive way: for example, Anton Piller Order is in the list, but Wikipedia already had an Anton Piller order article. This will eliminate a lot of wasted manual searching. -- The Anome 17:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's also quite a lot of character-set damage in the title list. Searching for near-matches on the basis of latin alphabet characters only would be an effective way of spotting many cases where the articles on this list have been incorrectly encoded, and there are already correctly encoded Wikipedia articles. For example, try mapping all non-Latin characters in both lists to (say) #, and then lowercasing, before looking for matches. This will find near-misses due to mis-coding of an accented character. -- The Anome 17:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How this list was generated, compiled or whatever remains a mystery to me, but hopefully not forever. In the meantime, let me point out -- again -- one of the inherent inconsistencies and idiocies of the planned growth of Wikipedia. Here we have yet another list of potential articles considered "encyclopaedic". (So far, there has been "Requested articles" and maybe similar pages.) The following procedure then is repeated again and again: Someone sees a "red link" and creates an article, maybe a stubby one. A few hours later the new page is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, the reason given is usually "dictionary definition". It just happened with panel. We should do something about that highly illogical and counterproductive phenomenon. <KF> 20:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand... I've looked at panel and I see it was created by an anon, either from following one of the numerous articles which like to this word, or by typing it into the search box and following the link from there. I can see that it was also linked from this list, but I doubt that this user was browsing here to be honest. There are already discussions on this page about what to do with suggested article topics which are more suited to wiktionary for example (i.e. we remove them from the list). I think the users ploughing through this list understand that they have to exercise their own good judgement, and are doing so.

If your comments weren't particularly aimed at this list, but more at the amount of rough or downright bad new articles being created in general, you might be interested in Seth's proposal on the village pump (to try to make sure that people are keeping an eye on newpages 24 hours a day). I see you're talking about planned growth. As I've said before on this page I don't see this list as prescriptive or exhaustive, and I would be surprised if other people used it in that way. fabiform | talk 00:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try again although it would be much easier for me if I knew how this list was created.

Picture this: A casual browser / newbie has just discovered Wikipedia and has been told on various pages that they can "edit any article right now. You don't even have to log in." So User:213.72.98.128 follows a link to an article that does not yet exist and types in what they know about the subject. They feel great, tell their friends to have a look at what they have done, but this lasts only for a minute or so, because then User:ExperiencedWatchdog places a VfD notice on top of the article. If they are lucky. If not, the new page becomes a candidate for speedy deletion and is gone for good.

That way lots of energy is wasted while no one profits from that kind of vicious circle, especially if, as in the case of the How to get rich or the Schnorrer/Shnorrer articles, this procedure is repeated after some time has passed.

I am not criticising this list; I am pointing out though that it encourages the creation of articles which some people then want to delete again. And I do wonder why this is so difficult to understand. <KF> 21:09, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When it says to "remove" your link after you post a redirect or a new page, are we actually removing the link from the list? I'm seeing some blue here and there, so I wasn't sure if those were in effect "removed," but not literally. Bamos 03:07, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I've been working at the edges of this effort. When I'm working through one section of a list page, I'll wait till I've make a pass, then strike 15-25 links at a time. I'll also at least glance at any that show up blue in the section as a result of someone else's work, and if I agree with the action, I'll strike those also. My intent in working this way is to reduce as far as reasonable, the edit history of the list. Lou I 04:44, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Biographies

List_of_encyclopedia_topics/Biographies_A includes links in the format Surname, first name. If someone wants to create a series redirects in that form, he may want to use List of people by name for existing biographies (I could compile a list from that for upload).

I'd appreciate if {{msg:to_sort_name}} would be included with the redirect. This allows to identify them easily later. -- User:Docu

I see that many of the articles listed have now been created. Is it considered all right to delete the completed articles or is the complete list being kept for a reason? MK 04:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Viruses

Upon inspection, there are a large number of computer viruses on the list. Does every virus deserve an entry?? Most don't seem particularly memorable; it would give a lot of credit, where little is due, to write up a virus for posterity!! JFW | T@lk 17:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to write-ups on all of these viruses, but getting them is fairly unlikely. Maybe we should sift them out and move them to a separate list? - SimonP 19:10, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of viruses would be better with the individual ones just redirecting there, rather separate articles for each. Angela . 19:50, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

I theory good articles could be written on most computer viruses, who created them, what they do, when they first appeared, etc. I think listing them at List of computer viruses and waiting for some computer security buff to come along is fine. - SimonP 20:37, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the most important thing about an entry on viruses instructions on how to get rid of it, or at the least links to a webpage that has such instructions? I'd have thought the casual browser would come across such an entry only when they actually need it (or if it hits the news)sheridan 19:03, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Bot to eliminate a lot of repetitive work on "List of encyclopedia topics"?

I proposed a bot to eliminate the easy redirects/disambig pages that need to be created on this list. Some, like the counties, are fairly obvious and can be easily scripted, I think. However, I think it comes down to whether orphan redirects are acceptable. If they are, and if these should really be made, then I think the easy ones should be scripted. If they're not OK, then I think that should be made clear on the main page ASAP because they seem to be a large segment of the articles to be made. See Wikipedia talk:Bots for the outline of the script I'd like to make. CHL 04:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Stats program

I've created a little javascript program to automatically work out the overall percentage of the redirects done, based on the percentage of each page that is done. Here's the link: [1]. It's geocities, by the way. To use the program, just cut and paste the stats section of the page, that is the bit between where is say, and the last item on the list, including the percentage done of the 78th item (including % sign). Paste that into the text box on the page i've linked to, then click 'findstat', and then a message box should pop-up giving the overall percentage finished. I've checked this against Excel, and it matches, so I'm confident that the program works. It uses Javascript, by the way.

Silverfish 15:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting finished pages

As somebody else commented a while ago, it looks like some of the bio lists have articles on all the people. While it's possible that some of our bios are missing some bits that are here, random sampling seems to show that the list rarely if ever has any additional info. We don't really want or need them on backlink lists for articles. Is there any reason not to summarily delete (or blank?) the no-longer-useful lists? If no one speaks up, I might start doing that in the near future. Stan 19:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with deleting those not needed... but have found that many people name links don't go where you'd expect. I suggrest checking the link, and then 'what links here' to find new candidates for disambiguationn. I'll offer to help, FWIW, Lou I 23:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For this reason they should be kept for a while - once all biographies are done I will systematically varify all are correct and appropriate. Rather than simply deleting the list I could just remove the links :) --Oldak Quill 22:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Society have a list of all their fellows, foreign members and presidents at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1727 and I think this would serve as a useful indication of articles that are needed. There are 26 pdf files at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1727 thru http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=796 but a script is needed to go through and somehow arrange them from "surname, firstname" into "firstname, surname", and ignore the titles. Formatting doesn't appear to be preserved by copying out the text, which would be very useful in knowing which data are where so that they can then be jiggled. Any thoughts? Dunc|☺ 23:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Several "lists of things Wikipedia hasn't got"

We have Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics and Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics (generated from various sources). Beyond a mere "tiding up" exercise I can see several advantages to merging the lists. Does anyone object if I do that? Pcb21| Pete 17:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. - SimonP 18:03, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think the lists should be kept separate. When checking for redirects, I know the sources of each list, and this makes it easier to eliminate articles. Please do not merge them! Danny 20:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good that I checked first :). What I actually had in mind was to create a merged list but equipped with three columns of tick boxes to indicate whether the title came from 1911, 2004 or Magnus' list. The idea is that if the same name appears on several lists it will have several ticks and stick out as a particularly important topic for us to cover. The ticks will mean that you will still be able to refer to the correct source, and so your life will not get any more difficult. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 08:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that each editor has a preferred list, so it would probably be best if things were kept as they are. I personally find the obscurity of most of the topics from Magnus' list quite fascinating, and I have been having quite a learning experience for the past week or so in which I have contributed with filling it with blue links. :) --Sn0wflake 04:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put up an example of a merged list at User:Pcb21/list temp for comments. It is volume 1 from each list merged. There is reduced overlap because the alphabetic ordering method is different for each list. However even with this list taking into account I am surprised by how little overlap there is. Pcb21| Pete 07:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The merged list does look spiffy. Seems like a lot of trouble for a list whose goal in life is to dwindle away to nothing, but they would be OK with me. Stan 14:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think merging the lists is an excellent idea, I can't really see how anyone can object to it, as it is not replacing existing lists, just working alongside them. It would also be interesting to see a list that also had all the requested articles in as well and all the lists of places without articles, I imagine it would be well over the present size of wikipedia. Is there any way available to measure the number of red links in wikipedia at the moment? Bluemoose 11:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most useful list

Poll: The EB 2004 list should be first priority. I've found it far more useful than the assembled terms listed on the main page. Anyone agree? Lotsofissues 10:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right. Pcb21| Pete 10:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. The original list is full of slang terms that can be deleted immediately, Enochian angels, which are simply moved to List of angels in Enochian, and computer viruses, which are moved to List of computer viruses, as well as redirects to various places. The 2004 list has serious content that needs to be covered. Danny 17:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, there seems to be no wikipedia article on dry rot (a 2004 item taken at random). There are tons of subjects that wp needs to cover that aren't getting attention right now, some of which have fairly substancial articles in EB 2004 --jacobolus (t) 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I switch them? Lotsofissues 01:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK to delete completed biography pages?

Just cleaning the Wikipedia namespace here...is it OK to tag biography pages marked "Complete and Done" for deletion? -- Beland 00:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can just delete them, provided you check to see that they are really done. I don't see any reason to go through a tedious VfD on them when the sole purpose of creating them was to delete them. Danny 00:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, will do. -- Beland 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other encyclopedia comparisons

I know this is a bit premature as we are only 25% done, but we will be finished fairly soon (i estimate about 10 months or so), but Brittanica 2005 is out and no doubt contains lots more articles than 2004, and the online one must be updated all the time, is there any way to easily update our list? also, i know microsoft encarta probably isnt as good as brittanica, but i may be able to access a friends copy of encarta 2005, so is it worth trying to compile a list of the articles on it, even if just for completeness sake? Bluemoose 14:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make the data available then I would be delighted. Get it online as soon as you can and then we (either as a group working on this project, or individually) can decide which list(s) to have a crack at/merge/whatever. Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to this page

Can there be more obvious (in both senses) links to the List of encyclopedia topics? Might get a few more entries done.

There appears to be a problem with the Clubman entry - or link to there from this listing.

Encarta

All of the Encarta links have been removed at Jimbo's request. Danny 13:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, still we should continue to bridge all the gaps. --Bhadani 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing up the list

Perhaps the acronyms and the possible computer viruses could be put into two separate lists, as what remains of the various lists seems to be composed largely of such items. "Items done" could be removed by someone (or several) with sufficient patience.

Perhaps this redivision and renumbering of lists could be done when ~50% of the original lists have been done.

redirect to french wiki?

i have redirected Lola Cordova in the list to the french wiki. is this acceptable? have left the entry on the list, in case this is to be changed. Doldrums 10:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against inter-language redirections Bluap 12:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as the French article isn't in an encyclopedic style Bluap 12:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is there guideline/policy about this? i dont speak french. if there is a problem with the redirection, pls consider taking appropriate action. Doldrums 12:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the lists

What are the initials alongside quite a few of the entries for? Is somebody doing them, checking to see that they are valid or what?

Jackiespeel 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

I'm reorganizing this list in the hopes to make it a little easier to use. It will be close to the format of the Hotlist which I think is excellent. Pages will be organized under letter rather than a number and will have mulitple letter pages e.g. A, A2, A3, B, B2. Each page will start with 500 entries and be consolidated on an as needed basis. I'm going to remove all existing blues from the list. Additionally each page will have search capabilities, google search and a google search of wikipedia. I could have used a template for the search but for only two search parameters I don't think it's necessary. In the mean time, work on some of the other excellent projects while I try to clean this one up. Comments are appreciated. --Reflex Reaction 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a very useful change. The old format has worked perfectly well for years, and those of us working on this project are well used to it. Moreover the new format make it far harder to find a particular article or group of articles. If I want to find all the pages beginning with "Canada" I now have to sort through nine articles starting with the letter "C" to find the right one. - SimonP 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Simon! I've been thinking about doing the reorg when I tried navigating the project around I had no idea what each of the page numbers corresponeded to. There was no way for me to know that Page 55 had topics from PH-PO, or that Page 42 covered LL-LO without going to the front page, but if it was reorganized I could find "Canada" pretty easily under "C" or "C2" from any page. Even with letter with several pages like 'B' or 'S' should be easier to sort through and find an area when rearranged. It would also eliminate some of the need to update the main project page so often, so errors like this [which has been up since early October] would not happen and updating like this would not need to happen. I was also using this as an opportunity to add searches to each of the entries to make redirecting or article creation a little bit easier. But if none of this convinces you and no one else steps up to the plate to try to change your mind, I'm willing to defer because you have been active in the project for a while and I don't want to make editing difficult for you. --Reflex Reaction 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: the subpages can be named A-Ae, Ae-Ag and Ag-Am instead of A2 and A3? There would be some overlap between letters and require some moving of pages but the list has already been pruned pretty well so it wouldn't be so frequent while still making the navigation a bit easier. --Reflex Reaction 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just rework {{Encyclopedia}} so that ranges rather than numbers are displayed? To me, That seems like a much simpler, and less disruptive, solution. - SimonP 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, it sounds like you are satisfied with the current situation. I don't actively work with this project and don't mind leaving it as it is but I thought a reorg would make it easier to work with but this appears not the case. Happy editing and thanks for your comments. I will revert most of my changes. --Reflex Reaction 15:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do appreciate your effort, and I am sorry that it seems to have gone to waste. - SimonP 16:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: remove the "probable viruses" to a separate group: with most of the other topics people will look under different headings - eg all Canada, all wildlife, so a strict alphabetical is more practical. Perhaps this time every year the pages could be reorganised for the new year - and any new entries added.

Jackiespeel 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily English source?

I can't find any notes on where this list comes from, other than "various sources". My guess is that it is primarily an older English source, perhaps the 1911 edition of Brittanica? I'm led to this conclusion by the lengthy list of small English hamlets on the list. I started at the W's and have added on already, but now I'm thinking many of these should not be included because they are simply too small, and should instead simply be marked as such?

I'd like comments on this sooner if possible. I'm working my way back through the alphabet and plan on adding an article for everything that I can find any information on. I'd hate to spend time on article that are best left out (or deleted).

Maury 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is an amalgam of a number of modern sources. We don't want to list exactly which were used because of copyright concerns. - SimonP 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of topics is not copywritable. And if this really was a concern, don't use it, obviously. But no need to worry, after some poking about it's clear this is scraped from the Probert Encyclopaedia. Maury 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for other users

Some general notes that might come in handy:

if it's a name and it has a middle initial, it's likely scraped from The Political Graveyard, and likely refers to some minor US politician. Many of these are of no note.
if it's a name without a middle initial, it is most likely an actor scraped from one of the Probert lists. Most of these are "historical" (1970's and older?) and many are of little import.
if it's a single-word name, it most likely a small town in England. I'm not sure what list these were scraped from. Many of these are *tiny* and perhaps should be removed.
Latin names are scraped from another Probert list, and typically refer to species of insects.

Since many of these entries come from Probert, if you're having trouble tracking them down, simply add the word " Probert" to your Google search. That will typically make the "correct" item the first or second hit on the resulting list.

Most of the items on this list are not really suitable for the wiki, many fail notability. I recommend removing them en-mass.

Maury 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]