Talk:Outline of New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Outlines Low‑importance

	This article is an outline, a type of article that presents a list of articles or sub-topics related to its subject in a hierarchical form. For the standardized set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines. Outlines are within the scope of WikiProject Outlines, a collaborative effort to improve outlines on Wikipedia. For guidance on building and maintaining outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.OutlinesWikipedia:WikiProject OutlinesTemplate:WikiProject OutlinesOutlines articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Hi, Legacypac

My response to your prod will be in the next section (I'm currently writing it). I'm hoping we can work together to arrive at an amenable solution....

@Legacypac: — The Transhumanist 08:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to prod

Part one

Dear Legacypac, in a prod you raised the following concerns: "No references support this page which is a duplication of New York City." First, let me address your perception that it is a duplication. General topics lists are of two types:

1) hierarchical general topics lists (titled "Outline of x" or "List of x topics") and

2) alphabetical general topics lists (titled "Index of x articles" or "List of x topics")

All general topics lists share the same scope as the corresponding root article. All, except in the extremely rare cases that a root article is missing.

In other words, all general topics lists are content forks of their respective root articles, because they cover the same territory—they have the same subject scope. They have done so since the beginning of Wikipedia (back then the terms "Outline" and "Index" hadn't been added to the titles yet, and they were all called "List of x topics" or "List of basic x topics". The "basic" lists have all been renamed, but there are still some "List of x topics" titled lists floating around).

Note that the content forking guideline covers both unacceptable types of forking, and acceptable types of forking. The existence of general topics lists predate the creation of the content forking guideline, and were never written into it. But, the general topics lists have consensus to exist, because no community consensus has ever been made to get rid of them. And they are covered (that is, allowed) by guidelines in various places. Other related navigation aids with similar issues are the timelines and glossaries. By the way, when an outline is fully annotated, it doubles as a classified glossary (that is, not alphabetized).

Which brings us to the question "Why have redundant scope with the root articles?" The reason is because general topics lists are intended as navigation aids, since the hierarchical general list format is similar to the table of contents of a book, while the alphabetical general topics list format is similar to the index of a book. The topics are organized according to their relationship to each other. Meanwhile in root articles, embedded links appear a bit more haphazardly throughout the text. Browsing the topics is a little harder to do when they are embedded links, and in the general topics lists they are presented more like on a restaurant menu for ease of selection. Some readers prefer to browse subject links arranged in lists.

Which brings us to the types of lists on a root article page: sidebars and navigation footers. That is, navigation templates. It is true that those, and categories, and lists overlap and compete. This redundancy was found to be beneficial, allows for leapfrogging, and is covered in WP:CLN.

I hope this explanation helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Also feel free to answer this part while I write part 2 below. I need to take a break to get something to eat, but I'll be back soon. Thank you for your patience. — The Transhumanist 09:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: @Legacypac: (oops, forgot to ping). — The Transhumanist 09:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part two

The list items in navigation pages generally don't get referenced, and generally rely on click-through for verification. After all, the main purpose of the general topics lists is for navigation, and so you get pretty quick feedback when you click on a link. WP:STAND states: "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation." So that is universally applied to general topics lists. It would be impossible to grow navigation systems very large if citations were rigidly required on the items themselves. The category system is a case in point. It has no references, and it works pretty well using the click-through approach. Referencing all its inclusions would be a colossal undertaking. The same concept applies to navigation templates (no references). So, it makes sense that the same approach has carried over to the rest of the navigation page types. It's been that way since before I started editing here (2005). Even the mathematics department, which has the most extensive set of general topics lists, do not include list item citations. See Lists of mathematics topics, List of string theory topics, Index of wave articles, Glossary of tensor theory, Outline of trigonometry, etc. — The Transhumanist 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General question

This outline is no worse than other outlines in the series. I see no specific reason for PRODing the NYC page other than as a test case. Would it be better to raise broader questions about whether outlines should exist, and in what form, in a more general forum, as was done for portals last year? Certes (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]