Wikipedia talk:Contents

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Wikipedia milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Machar Achiek Boma

[edit]

Machar Achiek Boma is a boma in Adior payam of Yirol East County, Lakes State South Sudan it has a population of 8,000 people (2017 Estimate) it borders Panyijar county to the north, Duk and Twic East county to the east, Ayiem Boma to the South Billing Boma to the Southwest and Tinagau Payam to the West.

Changing the order of pages

[edit]

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.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists (Standardized template) about introducing a standardized and accessible format for its subpages that may be of interest. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to this page

[edit]

I feel like that I've been trying to improve this page, but my edits keep getting reverted. I would ideally like people to build off my edits rather than throw all my edits away. My question to you is are there any edits to the page that you are fine with, and which ones would you like to not be implemented? Interstellarity (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need headers for accessibility through the TOC and vital articles should not be first....as they are just a project list that many projects have. Moxy🍁 12:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the pages to keep the headers but put all of the links on one line. In the spirit of collaboration, I think it would be good to talk about it and get feedback while editing at the same time. I would also suggest that you point out ways the pages can be improved as we collaborate on this so that we get an accept TOC page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The links from Wikipedia:Contents/TOC navbar, Template:Wikipedia directories and Template:Contents pages (footer box) are too redundant with the content of the page. Per Wikipedia:Redundancy, wouldn't it be better to remove them? Someone with more experience with this page could rethink the header and footer; it is not very visually appealing, and the repeated links are useless.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on no consensus for removal from main menu

[edit]

It doesn't look like it was linked here previously, but Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Remove the Contents link from the sidebar found no consensus to remove the link to this page from the main menu (the one that is hamburgered next to the Wikipedia logo), where it currently has pride of place just below the Main page. The close noted that even oppose votes suggested improvement, so the question then is how to do this.

One item raised was a lack of utility, and in that regard I agree the Browse by subject does not seem very useful. While the way this is all put together makes it a bit hard to follow, the various lists and outlines do not seem very regularly edited (even including a few disambiguation pages). This is a contrast to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/3, which is regularly updated and also provides division into categories. These categories map together quite well (see table below), suggesting two sets of pages working towards the same purpose of directing readers to important articles within particular topics. WP:Contents is more thorough with outlines, lists, portals, etc. in addition to the overview, but in terms of "Browse by subject" VA will provide a better reflection of current content.

Browse by format is a bit more unique, and perhaps more useful from the meta-perspective of introducing readers to Wikipedia's structure, rather than just what article it has. I would keep it for that reason, but we could be more informative and explain what those types of contents are. Further, this seems a useful place to merge Spoken articles, as they are another format through which content can be accessed.

For Articles by quality, firstly Vital articles and List of articles every Wikipedia should have are not about quality, so seem a bit misplaced. List of articles every Wikipedia should have is not even about the contents of en.wiki, so perhaps should be removed entirely from a Contents page about en.wiki. The Featured content and Good content sections are a bit more helpful, providing a very short explanation to readers about what those processes are. Again from a meta-perspective, I would keep these for improvement.

Alphabetical lists of articles could perhaps be renamed ot be a more general grab-bag, but a grab-bag section seems likely unavoidable in this project. As for Template:Contents pages (footer box), I'm not really sure what to do with that, it's a very strange mix of project pages, lists of lists, and actual lists and articles. CMD (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the webportal style of the subpages is outdated and could be discontinued. Currently, the 506 subpages and the intersection of Wikipedia:Contents/Topics layout with Wikipedia:Contents/Types layout are a typical case of WP:SLOP, a Rube Goldberg machine. For example, Wikipedia:Contents/Philosophy and thinking received only 1,899 page views in the past 30 days, demonstrating little interest from readers and being a much inferior solution to the redundant and controversial Portal:Philosophy.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]