This page is laid out and designed as part of a set of pages. To discuss the set as a whole, see Wikipedia talk:Contents. For more information on Wikipedia's contents system as a whole, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents.
Wikipedia:Contents is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages.
To create the network of classification systems, each TOC main topic was placed under all of its own topical parent categories. This process was repeated until a fundamental category was reached. When more than one parent was present, those one or two most related to other TOC topics were selected for the next higher level. The result is a hierarchical article topics classification system that includes references to the network of parents for a topic while also describing a clearer tree structure from each TOC topic to the fundamental categories. Because the Featured articles TOC amounts to an alphabetical index, those topics unique to it are included only under a previously existing Basic outline category, without adding any intervening categories.
A basic outline that includes only the main tree elements was constructed from the more detailed outlines. It includes several TOC topics and a few placeholders. That outline then was cross-referenced with the set of Portal TOC headers and Browsebar labels. The topics from the basic outline then were rearranged to create the portals outline. A few of the characteristics of the basic and portals outlines are listed below.
Excluding items only in the TOC of Featured articles, 36 unique main topics were found. They are included in a separate list.
All main topics under Information and Structure also are listed under one of the other fundamental categories, making these two categories unnecessary for completing the basic network of classification systems.
The twelve Portal TOC headers (with Browsebar labels) were used to organize each of the 36 unique main topics and related placeholders under exactly one heading. This means the existing set of Portal TOC sections is sufficient to uniquely organize each topic under allMain topic TOC systems. This was accomplished by placing a topic under the lowest available heading in a topical classification tree.
The terms used in Portal TOC headers and Browsebar labels do not always reflect the highest topics included in their respective classifications. Adjustments to some of these terms merit further discussion.
The following notations are used to help describe how the outlines were formed.
Bold categories are included in at least one Main topic TOC system.
Italic categories are used as the parent/child in the tree when more than one is present on a line.
I think that this page should be redesigned to look more like a table of contents page. This page is more about a table of contents for multiple tables of contents and I would like to see it look more like a list of articles. Pinging Sdkb to see if he/she has some ideas on what we do to improve the page. Other editors are welcome to comment as well. Interstellarity (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing sounds more like Wikipedia:Contents/Overviews. Overall, it's tricky to ascertain who is ending up at the contents page and how they might best be served. People just don't browse Wikipedia via a table of contents; they almost always have a topic in mind and search for it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: I have made some changes to the contents page. I have put the vital articles on top since they are Wikipedia's most important articles. What do you think of the design so far? Do you think it could be improved to serve most readers? You said that readers come here for all different reasons and was wondering how we could improve the page. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Learn about physical, mental, and social well-being
Wow. I'm blown away.
This is definitely worth discussing.
I noticed that it has 12 subject area classifications, while Wikipedia has 13. The Reference area is missing. That makes 13, which is awkward to put in a block, but could it be possible to add that to the top, centered above the block, or to the bottom, centered below the block? I'm not sure what picture could be used for that (a stack of books, maybe?), but it would be a shame to leave an entire knowledge classification out of our knowledge classification system.
I'm glad you like it! It's visually pleasing, intuitive, as well as useful for navigation and I still think it would work well on the contents page. I was thinking about starting an RfC but didn't get around to it... Having "reference works" as a broad category on the same level of "technology" and "science" feels odd to me... I'm not sure we need it, but we could add it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, have you ever noticed that reference works are at the beginning of the Dewey Decimal System? (000) They are the keys to the kingdom. The "kingdom" being the "kingdom of knowledge". So, while it isn't a broad knowledge category, it is overarching: reference works help unlock all the other subject categories and therefore are just as critical. As important as introducing students to the arts and sciences, is introducing them to library catalogs, dictionaries, thesauri, and other tools for finding the knowledge that they need to get through life.
Starting an RfC may be perceived as adversarial by those who have dedicated themselves to this department, as a way to override them. It may be better to try to build a good working relationship. Everyone here is very talented.
Before placing something like this in the mainstream, testing is important, in order to avoid potential unforeseen problems. We don't want an epic fail or crash that affects millions of people. So, making something available to a smaller population at first is a way to avoid major flubs on the main stage.
If a high enough percentage of those who try it like it, that would warrant making it more widely available. So, we should definitely put it on display somewhere, and start getting feedback on this excellent menu design.
Have you tested your design on Wikipedia's mobile view? On my screen, the pictures look off-center when in single-column display.
Have you viewed your creation in all the major web browsers to make sure it appears the same? I use firefox, and it looks great in that.
Thanks for your advice. I'll try to work on incorporating reference works into the design (or if I'm slow maybe someone else can do it). The design was tested and I continually adjusted it one day until it was responsive. It should be good on tablets, monitors, and phones, minus the offcentered thing. I'm not really sure why the images are offcentered like that, because it only happens on some mobile devices (I think only en.m.wikipedia.org). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome.
Could it be, that the reason the images are off-center in the version of your menu transcluded above, is because the css isn't getting accessed? Do CSS subpages follow transclusions of their parent page?
Would need to start an RFC to implement a scrolling nightmare like this as those concerned with accessibility for our readers would have a problem. That said I think lots would also think it's pretty even though it would impede navigation. Moxy-18:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If testing shows it to be popular, an opt-in approach wouldn't need approval, like a link or a skin or a user script or something. — The Transhumanist
Changing the order of pages
What do you think of this edit right here? I think it would be better to consolidate sections with vital articles at the top since it is a good way to organize the list. Please discuss here. Interstellarity (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sub pages of the directory should be first then project pages. Its wondefull you like the vital pages project but this system has been set up with Wikipedia:Contents/sub pages for a reason.
