Wikipedia talk:Contents/Outlines/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Contents. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scope of portal

Concerning the recent undiscussed name change from "Portal:Lists of basic topics" to "Portal:Basic topics"...

This isn't a portal about basic topics. It is a list of lists of basic topics on their respective subjects. Most subjects could have a list of basic topics. Nuclear technology for instance isn't a basic topic itself, but for newbies to the field, there's the List of basic nuclear technology topics - it has topics that are basic with respect to the subject of nuclear technology.

If the portal was to be renamed "Portal:Basic topics", the context would be changed, and many of the entries would no longer fit under the title. Also, articles that aren't lists would fit the title. But this is specifically a list of lists. It presents lists of basic topics.

I hope this description helps.

The Transhumanist (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Topical contents pages transclusion test

I'm using this page to test the process of transcluding contents page sections to multiple pages. You can see the related discussion at Portal talk:Contents#Topics-based contents pages project. You can see a working example of how a section here is transcluded to another page at Portal:Contents/Arts and culture. RichardF 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Coordinating Portal:Contents pages

A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. This activity has two basic parts. The simplest part is to coordinate their presentation, such as page layouts. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Portal talk:Contents. The more involved part is to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Most of the discussions about how to accomplish this are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and related projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Please feel free to join in on these activities. RichardF (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration!

Come help on List of basic space exploration topics.

The Transhumanist 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

General category

I propose having a general category, including e.g. world, world development, life, meaning of life, universe, humanity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for your observation. Thinking through these issues is very important. Of the examples you provided, "World" falls under geography, "world development" falls under science, "life" goes in biology, "meaning of life" belongs to philosophy, "universe" is an astronomy subject, and "humanity" falls under social science. I don't see need for a "general" subject category as the subject areas provided cover everything - and the list is open to expansion for the addition of new subheadings in each section (e.g., "countries" is a new subsection of the Geography section). Also, if any of the examples you've provided fall under more than one subject area, there is no reason that they can't be listed twice. Psychology is listed twice, for example. The Transhumanist 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Countries needed!

We only have a handful of countries included.

If there's a country or two that you are fond of, please make lists for them! Rudimentary lists made from a heading skeleton can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics#Basic topics lists for countries. The Transhumanist 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at these new lists

Countries: Australia • Canada • Egypt • Mexico • Russia • United States

They're all incomplete, and could use your discerning contributions. You could probably easily spot missing items which I missed! The Transhumanist 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines".

The Transhumanist 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming dispute over one of the pages renamed per the above proposal

A couple editors are resisting the name change of List of basic opera topics to Topical outline of opera.

The entire set was renamed by consensus at the Village pump, but I'm not sure what to do about this conflict. How is consensus applied in this situation?

The Transhumanist 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No - as you have seen - three editors have complained about the poor use of English here. I suggest arranging a centralized discussion so these articles can be suitably renamed. This should be an easy enough matter to deal with. --Klein zach 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. As far as I can see only two editors supported this name change at the Village Pump. --Klein zach 08:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 28#Major rename proposal of certain .22lists.22 to .22outlines.22

Bad English?

May I ask what 'Topical' means here? The three meanings I am familiar with are (1) applied on the skin, (2) of current interest and (3) of topics. If, as I assume, it's either (2) or (3) this begs a second question. Should we be using an ambiguous title? --Klein zach 06:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Until a new one is decided upon, yes. The consensus at the Village pump was that "basic topics" was a problem. If you can come up with a better alternative than "topical outlines", I'd sure be interested. By the way, a major collaboration to complete a topical outline for every country of the World shall be taking place starting on July 15th, and I plan on presenting a proposal at the Village pump to simplify titles of the pages in the set to "Outline of" once those are completed.

The Transhumanist 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please list the articles in question so we know what is involved. --Klein zach 08:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture list

An agriculture list of basic topics would be awesome. Not sure how to go about it... ImpIn | (t - c) 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Outline of agriculture? Minnecologies (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The whole hierarchy of Portal:Contents/Topical outlines was cut-and-paste moved to Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics. This is not how pages should be moved. Instead, we should use the "move" function so that the history is preserved. If there is an obstruction (as there appears to have been in some cases), it can be cleared out by a request to WP:RM.

At any rate, I'm merged all of the histories back together that I'm aware of. Very nice portal, everyone! Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

namespace discipline

I have nothing against these "outlines" as long as they remain unambiguously an indexing effort restricted to Portal:Contents/ subpages. There has been a flurry of recent moves of such outline pages into main article namespace (see Category:Outlines). This is not acceptable under WP:CFORK as it blurs the line between "Contents" indexing and full encyclopedic articles. Please move these pages back under Portal:Contents/ as soon as possible. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a few problems, and many past discussions, about where these pages belong. The only 2 I can remember without more coffee/time, are:

These outline-lists can be considered similar to Category:Lists of lists and Category:Topical indexes, which all dwell in mainspace.
The portal namespace is not included in our site search (and cannot be, because the profusion of subpages makes searching portal-namespace painful) hence moving indexes there makes them partially invisible to the readers (unless we scatter links to the outlines everywhere).

Hopefully someone else (The Transhumanist knows these pages best, but doesn't tend to use a watchlist) will chime in with the other reasons, or links to past discussions.

(You might also want to mention/move this thread at/to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, if you still think it needs discussion.)

Lastly, there were not any recent moves from portalspace-to-mainspace (afaik). What was probably happening, was pages being moved from the wikiproject's Draft area, into mainspace (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of animation is still at the draft stage). Just to clarify :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Quiddity, for the introduction. :)

Quiddity is correct. The outlines have never been subpages of a portal, but were article drafts stored as subpages of a WikiProject, where they were kept until they included enough material to be moved to article space.

The WikiProject used to be called Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics but was renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge because it is much more professional, conforms to WP:COMMONNAME, and to compete with Britannica. :) "Lists of basic topics" was just plain awkward.

Outlines (which used to be called "List of basic x topics" and "List of x topics") are lists, and are subject to the WP:LISTS guideline. Note that lists are a type of article, and while these particular articles are featured as links on a portal, they aren't actually part of the portal, similar to the articles listed at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, Portal:Contents/Overviews, Wikipedia:Featured articles, and all subject-related portals. Portals are for the most part intended to present links to articles, including list articles, and those articles aren't considered part of the portals themselves.

The articles List of overviews, Lists of topics, List of glossaries, and Lists of basic topics were moved to portal space because they didn't look like normal list articles. They had been extensively reformatted to match the style of Portal:List of portals. The person who moved the pages mistakenly cited WP:ASR as his reason, perhaps because the title "Avoid self-references" implied that it applied to all self-references. To solve this recurring problem, that guideline has since been renamed to "Self-references to avoid" (WP:SRTA), reflecting the scope of the guideline, which pertains to specific types of self-references only.

Once in portal space, references to Wikipedia were added to those pages, because WP:SRTA no longer applied to them (it doesn't apply to portal space). We thought "what the heck" and integrated them more fully into Wikipedia's contents system, with emphasis on "Wikipedia's". :)

The Transhumanist 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Has this portal ever been approved? Some of the created articles are clearly inappropriate in mainspace; outlines of controversial articles remain controversial and subject to editing restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a portal per se. It's a list that was moved to portal space because it has graphical formatting, menu icons, etc. Matching lists were already in portal space, including Portal:Portals. We connected them together, via consensus, as a set. The Transhumanist 02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns which don't seem to be being dealt with in the Outline articles:

If the article is under an editing restriction, then this outline must be under the same restriction. I don't think that's being done. Outline of Kosovo?
The [[Outline of ....]] articles I've seen are of no use to anyone, except possibly an index into the article in question. They should not be in article-space, and also should not be indexed by Google. I don't doubt the possibility of a useful outline of.... article; I just haven't seen one.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding issue 2, have you considered reading these short explanations, namely the one on the right? -- penubag (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This list, which is soon to be featured, could be considered an outline. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that could be considered an outline, although it seems to be using a Wikipedia-only definition of outline. However, Outline of Kosovo, or, in general, outlines with the majority of links red, should not be in article-space. Articles where the names are subject of naming restrictions (Macedonia, anyone?) need to inform the appropriate people before the article is created. However, I don't see an immediate problem other than that, except that that the project, as currently run, makes us look stupid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

yes. The problem here is not with outlines as such, it with a single user who has taken this project and more or less run amok with it since last May. Peace to outlines, they can be very useful to be sure, but this aggressive hogging of main namespace, and the irresponsible search-and-replace mass creation of new pages needs to stop now. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing?

Have you noticed any major subjects missing from the Outline of knowledge?

Let us know at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/What's missing?.

The Transhumanist 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Catalonia

I have created Outline of Catalonia, maybe somebody want to see it for correcting anything related with outlines. --Vilar 11:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention AWB users!

If interested in the automated message I've left below, I can give the OOK project its own list. I remember someone saying that a lot of AWB work was involved in the project, hence why I'm here.

This a general notice to all AWB users: you can now install the Fronds plugin, and contribute towards improving it. Find/Replace On Demand Services (FRONDS) are collaboratively-created blocks of Find-Replace combinations for AutoWikiBrowser, where knowledge can be shared for maximum efficiency. All AWB users are invited to try them out, and make suggestions. Don't know anything about regular expressions? Fear not, you can still enjoy using the plugin. Fronds is particularly suitable for those collaborating to make repetitive edits. Any questions can be directed to the talk page or my user talk page. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco

Maybe those at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Tobacco might be inetersted in making an OOK. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Straw poll and discussion concerning what outlines should be called

See: Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Should articles named "Outline of x" be renamed to "List of x topics"?

The Transhumanist 04:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Change of Icons

I'm proposing replacing the icons in the TOC with a visually more cohesive icon style. As these icons appear on multiple pages, please go to Portal talk:Contents/Types TOC to see and discuss this proposal. Elekhh (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of San Francisco topics

An editor recently created this article, which isn't a proper list at all; but I can imagine it being converted successfully into an "Outline of San Francisco" if anyone here is looking for something to do. Them From Space 07:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2 points

The outline of James Bond is way too specific to be included in the outline of the sum of human knowledge
In the history section, I think someone forgot there is plenty of earth beyond the empire's borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.26.231 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections

Some of the sections in this article are hideously long. Is there any way we could divide them into collapsable sub-sections? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what the tableofcontents and scrollbar are for. Collapsing entire sections of pages isn't generally a good thing. It irritates as many people as it potentially pleases. Even Wikipedia:Good articles doesn't collapse sections by default anymore (currently). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we at least have "back to top" buttons at each section so people don't have to scroll so much? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

It's been suggested before (for articles) and widely rejected by the community. It clutters the page up, and isn't necessary in addition to the keyboard buttons [home] and [page up], and mousewheel, and browser scrollbars (clickable and draggable).

You can add links for just yourself though. Someone gave instructions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Can I add a "back to top" button alongside section headers (through "preferences")? (permanent link for post-thread-archival). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Clutters up the page? Are they really that big? I would think it would just be small text on the right side of a header.

2) I'm using a computer that does not have home and page up/down keys. However, it does have a multi-touch trackpad, but with a page this long, the scrolling would get tedious. ... It's a Mac, you see, so I'm not alone. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Clutter is subjective! I live quite happily in a world of clutter. However, we try to keep the "interface" aspects of Wikipedia as minimal as possible, generally. (I'd hypothesize).

Tangentially: if you used a section-link to jump down through a page, you can often (browser-depending) use the "back" button/command to move up to the table of contents again. You probably know this, but justincase. :)

2) Hmmm. Good point. You might want to bring that up at the Village pump discussion, or start a new one later. It applies to articles as much as this page though, so shouldn't be decided here. In the meantime, hopefully the instructions to add Top-links for just yourself, will do what you need. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1.1) What I meant was I thought the "back to top" buttons were only about half as small as your signature and wouldn't take up much room at all. Or am I wrong?

1.2) When I originally came to this page, I was in browsing mode: you know, scrolling to see what was there. I wasn't able to press the back button and be in the same page because I never touched the table of contents. Back to Top buttons would do something about this.

2) No comment. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

By clutter, I don't mean taking up physical space, but clutter as a mental distraction. Blue links tend to grab the wandering eye. Having blue links next to headers would mean one has to mentally 'stop' reading the header before the words "back to top" begin.

Sections (back to top)

Whilst it might be easy for us, it might be a lot harder for those at the edges of the age-range, attention-range, foreign folks, etc.

That's my opinion on it, at least. As I said, if you'd like a larger discussion, I recommend taking the topic to the Villagepump. Maybe someone can make a "User preferences->Gadget" for it, or similar. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Objection to changing "Outline of Knowledge" to "Outline of knowledge"

Fram, in your edit summary, you asked why "knowledge" would be capitalized...

Because "Outline of knowledge" is the grammatically correct name of Wikipedia's outline article about the subject "knowledge".

And because Wikipedia's "Outline of Knowledge" is not an outline article about "knowledge": it is an actual outline (tree structure) of the body of human knowledge! It's a unique entity, with its own name. It is a proper noun. To refer to it as "the 'Outline of knowledge'" or "Wikipedia's 'Outline of knowledge'" would be grammatically incorrect.

Britannica has a work entitled "Outline of Knowledge" as well, within its Propaedia volume. It is their tree structure of the body of human knowledge. Ours is positioned to grow much more comprehensive than theirs, due to the nature of wiki development.

By the way, we used to have Britannica's Outline of Knowledge tree structure, in multiple pages, down to their subsection level in the Wikipedia namespace. It got deleted as a copyright violation.

Based on scope, other outlines of the body of human knowledge include the Library of Congress Classification, and the Dewey Decimal Classification. Being specific presentations of man's accumulated knowledge, their titles are also proper nouns. We still have multiple-page copies of those.

The outlines listed in Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge (OOK) are articles about their respective subjects (in structured list format), and so their titles are not proper nouns. They do however serve as extensions (i.e., branches) of the OOK and are linked to from there because they are themselves outlines about the corresponding subjects. When outlines are linked together, they form a larger (multiple-page) outline.

Britannica's Outline of Knowledge goes 7 levels deep, while Wikipedia's tree structure of the body of human knowledge already goes 9 levels deep in some places. It may reach 11 or 12 levels deep some day.

Please change the title back, as it now incorrectly indicates that it is an outline about the subject "knowledge" rather than a presentation of the body of human knowledge in outline format. And because it inappropriately duplicates the title of the article Outline of knowledge.

The Transhumanist 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll let other people comment as well, I am not convinced by your reasoning. Perhaps we should just rename it to "Outline of outlines" and be done with it? Just like we have lists of lists? Fram (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"List of outlines", might work. It would correlate well with the previous title "[List of/Wikiproject] basic topic lists". It would also match with the current titles of Portal:Contents/Lists of topics and Portal:Contents/List of glossaries.

So, Portal:Contents/List of outlines and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Outlines, would be my suggestion. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem with this either. Fram (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Outline of outlines" implies that the subject is "outlines", rather than just the content. For example, outline of sharks includes information on types of sharks, history of sharks, study of sharks, behaviors of sharks, etc. An "outline of outlines" would cover the types of outlines, their applications, their history, etc. But as a proper noun, "Outline of Knowledge" implies that its content is knowledge, outlined - it is different than the article. The Transhumanist 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Transhumanist on this one. The Outline of Knowledge is a standard and title to go by. -- penubag (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No opinion as to whether "Outline of knowledge" is acceptable, but Outline of Knowledge would be a proper name, would require attribution, and would, according to Wikipedia guidelines, be called "Outline of knowledge" even if the capitalization were appropriate "in the real world". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, as you've caused me to notice an underlying problem. See my new proposal at Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages. The Transhumanist 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Name change proposal

See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal: Use the same naming convention for all of this portal's subpages.

The Transhumanist 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Natural and Physical Sciences

Is it really necessary to separate natural and physical sciences, when physical sciences are a branch of natural sciences? Natural Sciences should be sufficient by itself. Its similar to having a list called Religion and Abrahamic Religions--entirely superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.85.180 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the Portal:Contents subpages use the same structuring template: Portal:Contents/Types layout.

Afaik, the section title "Natural and physical sciences" is written like that partially to provide appropriate keywords for someone glancing through the Table of Contents, and partially to match the "A and B" naming style that is used in the other section titles.

Whilst we could consider changing the titles (of that section and other sections) to something like those used in Template:Science, I don't believe those would be as clear to many of our readers. (eg "Formal sciences" vs "Mathematics and logic")

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change a section title

There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents". See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment. The Transhumanist 10:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Include redirect WP:2 in a "Shortcuts" box. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Include redirect WP:BT in a "Shortcuts" box. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Need placement

The above links need placement on Portal:Contents/Outlines. The Transhumanist 19:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrology and metric system

I was not too sure how to hook the article Outline of the metric system into this article - is is science or is it engineering and technology. Could it be commerce (which is where it originated in 1799)? In the end I added a new section "Metrology" as an applied science and hooked the metric system artcile on there. I am happy to respond to any observations or comments. Martinvl (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The great books are listed twice- the second listing should be removed. 121.45.209.97 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Done -- John of Reading (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oneness

I added "Oneness (Tauheed) and Justice/Equilibrium (Ad'dl in Arabic language)". This is the very basis of Islamic Science. This subject or theme has atonce been removed. Undo option is being used for restoration, without knowing its future retention, in view of my experience editing here.Nannadeem (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice that every other link on this page leads to an article "Outline of ..." -- John of Reading (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Respected John. This is the simple purpose of adding these words. Nannadeem (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

German wiki?

Any plans to start this kind of project at the German wiki? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know German. Besides, the set of outlines on the English Wikipedia is far from complete. The Transhumanist 03:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Something weird is going on with the People and self section

The previous treatment has been replaced. Now the entire section is about life management via the management and evolution of ontology, sociology, aesthetics, and physics. How this pertains to people and self is unclear (as are the quotes), but more importantly, it appears that another outline of knowledge is being constructed from scratch in this section.

I think it might be a good idea to revert it to the way it was:

People

Types of people

Children

Self

Aspects of people

Their bodies (biology)

Their minds (psychology)

Thought

Their behavior (sociology)

Human sexuality

BDSM

Relationships

Note that the hidden comments are included above. They are links to planned outlines intended to flesh out the section.

This section is intended to be about people (including the self as one of them), not about all knowledge. Your input is needed. What do you think? The Transhumanist 07:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer this short version. But it's worth pinging Arsjaad (talk · contribs) who put a lot of work into a longer version. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Things people do

Where do occupations and pastimes, recreational activities etc go? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Outline of self has been nominated for deletion here. SpinningSpark 19:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for specific people

So what is the inclusion criteria for specific people at § People and self? We have only five entries so one would assume there is a very high bar for inclusion. We have Abraham Lincoln but not George Washington. Albert Einstein but not Isaac Newton. Bob Marley but not John Lennon. William Shakespeare but not Geoffrey Chaucer. Joseph Smith but not Jesus. Seriously? SpinningSpark 19:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, got it, those are the ones with outline pages. Still, it looks very odd. SpinningSpark 19:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This oddness can easily be rectified by creating outlines for more people. Outlines make a good structural framework for a useful portal. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)