The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to restore the outline entry to this portal, and keep the "Outlines" links on this portal's header and footer templates.

The outline entry has been removed from this page during an edit war and unfortunately was missing from the page when it was protected. The entry described and linked to one of the subpages of this portal, also a major branch of Wikipedia's navigation system including over 500 outlines full of topic links. The whole set of outlines has between 30,000 to 50,000 links to Wikipedia articles. The list of outlines warrants an entry and link on this contents page.

The entry was located directly below the link for "Overviews", and looked like this:

• Outlines—expanding on the overview above, this set of outlines (structured lists) shows the structure of knowledge and its various branches, and serves as a table of contents for those subjects and their coverage on Wikipedia.

I propose that we add that entry back in.

Also affected by the edit war were the "Outlines" links on the nav menu at the top of this portal's pages, and on its footer. See:

• {{Contents pages (header bar)}}
• {{Contents pages (footer box)}}

The links are currently locked in place by page protection, but before the templates were protected a particular editor made the "Outlines" links disappear every couple of days or so.

Therefore, I also ask that these links be kept in place and that the person who has been removing them be required to stop doing so.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. The Transhumanist 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in header and footer templates as overkill, support inclusion in page, but at the bottom of the section "other topic lists", if outlines in general get consensus at an RfC. I am not convinced that we should have outlines, and I don't believe that their overall quality is sufficiently high to give them the second spot here and a place in the header and footer. Fram (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Outlines exist. There are over 500 of them in article space, presenting tens of thousands of topic links in a well organized manner. They have a very high utility in helping users browse subjects and explore their subtopics. The list of them is a subpage of this portal, and a link to it needs to be included here and on this portal's menus so that people can explore and edit the outlines. Orphanizing the list of outlines would be doing Wikipedia's readers a disservice. Providing them with another way to find subjects is a good thing. The Transhumanist 10:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Only if this "other way to find subjects" is a good way of doing this. Not everyone agrees on this. Looking at Outline of philosophy, I notice that it starts with an ugly banner, unlike any other Wikipedia article I'm aware of. Why? Ah, because it's not really an article, it's a bunch of templates put together on a page. This page looks like a Project page, not a Wikipedia article, and is in its current form in the wrong namespace. Drop-down boxes are also not what one expects in Wikipedia. articles. Looking at a random second outline, Outline of sports, I notice that it has been vandalized on August 18[1], which wasn't reverted until now. Apart from that, this is smply a list of sports and should be kept at that title. By the way, the first line, "sports can be done ... in space"? Technically, of course, and in SF novels, but not really realistic at the moment... A thrid outline, Outline of Africa, again has the overuse of templates in the main text, and has some very strange subheadings, like "West Africa 40px". The History of Africa by year and month also shows how well this is maintained... A fourth one, Outline of functional analysis is correctly removed to the "list" title, which probably many outlines should have... Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The Outline of philosophy banner templates are an idiosyncrasy of that particular topic. The editor who added them there, placed them at all the locations that the banner lists. You'd have to talk to him (or the WikiProject Philosophy) about that. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The ugly banner is an anomaly but even so, it doesn't adversely affect the navigability of the page - it actually adds navigability. The edit on the sports outline wasn't vandalism - pompon is the name of a sport (cheerleading squad competition). The editor removed his subheading in the very next edit, leaving only the sport name. Fram, you should apologize to the editor whom you falsely accused in this public forum. Also, you didn't mention any problems concerning templates. Do they adversely affect navigation, and if so, please explain how. You didn't expect to see them, but what difference did that make? Please clarify. And the typos, are an argument against the pages how? They're easily cleaned up and don't affect the usefulness of the page. You are pointing out minor problems, and this is a useful thing. But minor problems don't affect the utility of these pages or their content. By the way, please look over more outlines, and I'll be happy to clean up any problems that you find. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; concur with Fram as to position in this template (and with Verbal in regard the degree of consensus for inclusion); weak support for inclusion in the header/footer templates if included in the main template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What did you mean by "this template"? What did you mean by "main template? The Transhumanist 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • To rephrase, it clearly should not appear in the "overviews" section of the Portal without a clear consensus for its proper placement, which has never occurred in a proper venue. It might appear in "other lists", but it still should have a tag stating that the placement is disputed. It might belong at the end of the header and footer templates (not in template space, but they are still templates.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Being the talk page for the page being discussed, this is the proper forum. 08:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support So long as the pages exist on Wikipedia (and I am not convinced of that; I think that perhaps they should have their own separate namespace), I think they should be treated as any other navigation tool. Therefore, adding this as a singular line anywhere on this page (perhaps as a separate section, perhaps in "Other topic lists") would be a good idea. NW (Talk) 18:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support listing the outlines further down this main content portal (perhaps in "Other topic lists" section, per NW). There was strong opposition to moving these types of pages out of mainspace (by all but 2 editors) at the recent RfC of Inclusion criteria for Lists. See particularly llywrch's comment: "Year articles aren't explicitly lists, but they are composed of lists of events, births & deaths, & some Wikipedians have wanted to delete them because they had no other content & likely would never contain anything more than these three lists & some nav boxes." Hence I'm still convinced that outlines are in the same grey-area that "lists of lists" and "year articles" and other "navigational pages" are in. If anyone decides to examine that issue comprehensively, then I'll support that discussion, but deciding on "outlines" separately doesn't seem like a positive direction to move in. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - They are a sub-part of this portal, some don't like them, and some want them deleted. But until they are deleted, they do exist, they are part of this portal's scope and they should be listed - Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Since outlines are used for navigation and RfC have accepted them, they should be listed. See top of the content page which states Links to all of Wikipedia's main contents pages are presented below, and they in turn link to the more specific pages. Outlines should be treated as a content page. --Stefan ^talk 01:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - It is strange that a few editors have been demanding that outline supporters post an RfC to establish consensus for outlines, that is, approval for the existence of outlines. But outlines don't need to establish consensus, because they are the status quo. They already exist. It would require a new consensus to delete them, move them, rename them, redesign them, etc., due to Wikipedia's rules on deletions, mass moves, mass edits, etc. You can't just move or rename 500 outlines without a major outcry and subsequent admin intervention (i.e., user block). The rules require that some type of proposal be presented or discussed and a consensus be reached before performing the deletion, mass move, etc. Basically, an AfD or RfC. For supporters of outlines to post an AfD, or an RfC for an adverse action (such as renaming them, etc.) that they clearly do not want to happen, would be a violation of WP:POINT. Our hands are tied. Meanwhile, the detractors have been trying to tie their demand for an RfC to their effort to deny access to outlines, but the issue is reduced to its least common denominator, edits, and they won't be able to ignore consensus achieved in access discussions such as this one, since edits to any page are bound by consensus achieved on that page's talk page. The talk page consensus will either allow or disallow particular edits to the page. In this case, the inclusion of an outline entry and corresponding links. That is, the demand for an RfC is invalid and irrelevant, and does nothing but confuse those not familiar with the rules. If they want to move or delete outlines, they'll have to post a proposal at the requisite forum per Wikipedia's well established rules. Such a proposal will be unlikely to succeed, for it will need to be announced on the page or talk page of every article that the proposal affects: all 500 of them. A large number of supporters would be attracted to the discussions, making the proposal a lot of work for nothing. Which is probably why no detractor has bothered. The Transhumanist 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per TT.Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Request to edit protected page: Please revert the page to the last edit by Highfields, per the proposal directly above. The Transhumanist 01:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the broader discussions that have been taking place, but I've made the edit because there does appear to be consensus for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your edit. While there is support to include them, the location suggested by The Transhumanis has much less support. See e.g. the opposes, and supports like "Support listing the outlines further down this main content portal (perhaps in "Other topic lists" section, per NW)". I would suggest moving the outlines entry down to the "other topic lists", where it belongs. Fram (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you keep discussing this and I will be happy to move it if a consensus develops on the best location. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had noticed that there was no agreement on the location of this entry, and that this should have been clarified instead of just acting upon the "editprotected", but oh well... Fram (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Reverted. Please discuss the best place for this link. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fram that near-top-billing isn't reasonable (at least this year), and the prior comments do seem to converge on placing it within the "Other topic lists" section. As long as we can keep the editorializing out of their description, then I'll be contented. I'd tentatively suggest using this:

...

• Lists—a selective collection of article lists, arranged by subject.
• Category:Lists—a list of lists in the category system, arranged alphabetically.
• Outlines—a structured list of topics associated with a certain broader subject.

Two of the broadest...

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the other links section - Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, would they not be better in the overviews section? After all, that is really what they are meant to be. NW (Talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

True, they are overviews, and the proposal was to restore them to the Overviews section. They should be placed in the section that best describes them, and "Overviews" does so a lot better than "Other lists". The Transhumanist 09:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That was your proposal, yes, but that part if it didn't really have consensus. Currently, the overviews are two pages which have a total overview of our content, linking directly to our pages on those main subjects. The rest, more detailed pages, are listed in other sections. The main outlines page is not a listof links to our main articles, but a list of links to other outlines, just like the "lists" page is a link to other lists, not to pages. Placing those together makes perfect sense. Fram (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion it didn't have consensus? Please explain your reasoning process on this. Looking at the above discussion, I see 4 for the proposal, and 4 for placing it in "other". There is no consensus for changing it from the Overviews section to the Others section. Ties go to the existing status quo - and at the time of the proposal, they had been last residing in "Overviews". The Transhumanist 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Consensus isn't a number count, as you well know.
2. Besides which, your counting is flawed: You supported including them in the "Overviews section", and Greg Bard supported "per TT". Everybody else either specified "further down" or related wording, or expressed no preference.
3. You're just aggravating everyone by beating this wounded horse. If you want the outlines to be listed higher up here, and to be thought of as core components of our navigational structure, then improve the quality of the damned pages so that people have less reason to disagree. It's not rocket science. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The accusatory and insulting rhetoric is uncalled for. This is a polite discussion, and you seem to be attempting to make it less so. If you can't discuss the issue cordially, please excuse yourself from the conversation.

Getting back to the point at issue (consensus), support, without explicitly expressing preference, supports placement inherent in the proposal, which proposed a very specific action.

As for improving the pages, they need greater exposure to attract the editors needed to make the improvements. (Which comes first, the finished-quality product, or the editors? The editors, of course, because you can't produce a finished quality product without them). Expecting a single editor to improve this set of pages to finished quality is unreasonable. Most of the complaints have been concerning aesthetics, which has little to do with navigation. And that's the main reason for giving the outlines better placement: their utility - they assist in browsing subjects quite well.

The Transhumanist 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1. The top "Overviews" section contains articles. The "Other topic lists" subsection contains lists. Outlines are structured lists.
2. Verging on cart before the horse. We don't put poor-quality stubs in any section on the Main Page. Outlines can recruit editors through wikiprojects and happenstance, just like every other project does. And it's not a "single editor", there are dozens of editors working on various outlines.
3. I'm not trying to be insulting, nor to make this discussion less polite. I'm trying to stop you from Wikilawyering over a 3cm high placement-quibble, and thereby irritating the various editors who have already agreed to a 'compromise' of sorts. The Outlines are now included in the Portal page, and the header/footer templates. Let it go.
4. The Outline of British Columbia and Outline of forensics are on my watchlist, and are looking a lot better after your recent cleanup work. It is appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About three years ago, I started working on a Topics-based contents pages project. My basic objective was to design and implement a set of complementary contents pages that can use the same underlying sections. One group would include individual pages with all of the sections related to a type of page, like Overviews, while the other group would have pages with all of the sections about a topic, like Culture and the arts. The underlying structure of this project has been in place almost from the start. Complementary page layout templates for each group - Portal:Contents/Types layout and Portal:Contents/Topics layout - plus the contents of each section moved to subpages allow for transclusion to and editing from either template group. Here's an example of the same underlying section showing on the two corresponding pages: Overviews - Culture and the Arts and Culture and the Arts - Overviews. While both groups of contents pages are fully functional, only the pages by type are included in the contents navigational headers and footers.

I recently updated the topical contents page group to reflect the changes since I last worked on this project. Here's a summary of what I found. The type-oriented group includes six pages with topical sections: Overviews · Portals · Lists · Outlines · Glossaries · Categories. The topical group includes 12 pages with type-oriented sections: Reference · Culture · Geography · Health · History · Mathematics · Nature · People · Philosophy · Religion · Society · Technology. This means that up to 72 contents sections could be included in either of these contents page groups. As it turns out, 71 of these 72 possible sections actually do contain links to content. The only empty section to date is Glossaries about People and self.

My recommendation is to do the following:

• Add topical links to the contents pages navigational header and footer templates - Template:Contents pages (header bar) and Template:Contents pages (footer box).
  • Those links would be as follows: Reference · Culture · Geography · Health · History · Mathematics · Nature · People · Philosophy · Religion · Society · Technology.

As a demonstration of the concept and to facilitate discussion, I will be bold and do the following:

• Add the proposed links to Template:Contents pages (footer box).
• Replace Template:Contents pages (header bar) on all pages listed in it (except on Featured content) with Portal:Contents/TOC navbar, including: Contents · Overviews · Portals · Lists · Outlines · Glossaries · A–Z index  · Categories. This will keep the proposed header bar change off the high-profile featured content page, while still allowing testing of the proposed change in context.
• Update Portal:Contents to better reflect the inclusion of topical contents pages and the organization of the contents pages navigational templates.
• Activate the links to to the applicable topical contents pages from the corresponding type-oriented contents page section headings.

I look forward to the discussion on how we best can reach consensus on this proposal. Regards, RichardF (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing. The topics-based pages contain too much redundancy. The redundancy on the geography page is especially strong. I believe the topics pages will fuel the battle between lists and categories, between lists and outlines, between lists and indexes once the index list is added, and between outlines and portals. Each subsystem needs to be allowed to develop independently of the others, for leap-frogging to occur. Outlines especially have the potential to develop into a very robust system, including software enhancements. Presenting such close comparison will only invite the all-or-nothing axe upon one or more of these subsystems. But more than anything, it is just confusing - which is the same reason it didn't go live 3 years ago. I'm reverting. The Transhumanist 23:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the page was reverted, here is a link to Portal:Contents with the aded topical contents page navigation links and corresponding revised narrative -- RichardF (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Page view stats

Wikipedia contents page views trial, February 2011, for discussion at Portal talk:Contents. Data found at Wikipedia article traffic statistics.

Here's a set of Wikipedia article traffic statistics for the proposed header bar contents pages. In about half a day since posting the topical contents page links on the navigation bar, they already are over 2,500 page views today. These individual page views range from over 100 to over 400. I'll track these views at least through February. -- RichardF (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

These stats show the effects of link placement. "Contents" and "Featured content" are on the sidebar which is displayed on every page of Wikipedia. The portals link is on the Main Page, and is featured multiple times in a nav-bar at the top of most portal pages. When subjects are displayed across a navbar, readers tend to blast across the navbar, increasing the page count for the pages linked to - thus the topics pages feed each other with cursory page views. When "Overview" was moved further up the page toward the top of Portal:Contents, it's traffic went up. Since Portal:Contents is in the top 100 pages for traffic on Wikipedia, anything listed at the top of it will get more hits by placing it there. I do believe the topics-based pages that congregate all the contents page types should not be placed there, because they are just too confusing. See the discussion thread above. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The topical contents page links were removed from the contents pages header bar before the completion of the second day of testing, January 29, 2011. Nevertheless, as indicated in the updated table and corresponding chart, the number of views on these pages increased substantially. Clearly, when given the opportunity, Wikipedia users choose to view contents pages organized by topic. In addition, when give a side-by-side choice, they often viewed topical contents pages at a rate higher than they viewed the non-high profile type-oriented contents pages. RichardF (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The table and chart now cover the Wikipedia contents page views February 2011 trial period. -- RichardF (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show what you've claimed. What it shows is that readers tend to click more on links that are placed at the top of a page. Any links you place up there will get more traffic. The question is, what links should be placed up there? That question cannot be answered by page view counts - especially in a nav bar where readers may simply be blasting across the nav bar for a quick look-see. The Transhumanist 23:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of trial period

Comment: I agree with the proposal by RichardF (talk · contribs), I think it is a great idea. However, we should gain a greater consensus from more individuals than simply the two quibbling above. :P Perhaps blast a notice out to relevant talk pages of WikiProjects, and parties can in the meanwhile agree to a two week trial period? Surely the world will not end if we implement a two week trial period? Thank you for your time and consideration, -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted invitations at several community talk pages, but so far, not much interest in joining the discussion has been shown. Perhaps Cirt (talk · contribs) can be more persuasive.  :-) At this point, I believe a third party should reinstate the reversions to Portal:Contents, Portal:Contents/Types layout and Template:Contents pages (footer box). -- RichardF (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yay

1. Support 2 week trial period as proposed by Cirt. -- œ^™ 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support trial period through February 14 - Wikipedia time. With three supports, I'm going to reinstate the links. -- RichardF (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - lets try it out see what we get .Moxy (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - Seems reasonable to me I don't see any reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? Comments

1. Oops - I was expecting that selecting a top row (say, Categories), then the type of the selection displayed on the second row (say, Nature) would be of type Category:Nature. Likewise, if Outlines were selected on the top row, then the analog would be Outline of Nature on the second row, etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
   1. When I go to a "contents" page, I expect it to be about the subject matter - the topics covered. Wikipedia's contents pages traditionally have been about organizing the material with similar characteristics and formats. This setup, IMHO, has been the fundamental disconnect from traditional subject matter classification systems. I hope the two week trial period offers an objective measure of how Wikipedia users actually prefer to browse summaries of its contents. In any event, giving Wikipedia users meaningful choices about how they access the encyclopedia's content is a good thing. I also think the expanded labels and links on the top navigation bar help address any initial confusion about each line. -- RichardF (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, it doesn't show preference or meaningful choices. Any links you place at the top of high-traffic pages such as Portal:Contents will get a lot of hits just out of curiosity. If people used these pages over and over, then we could expect that the number of hits would continually rise rather than remain constant. They aren't rising, which indicates they are probably getting looky-loo traffic and not repeat users. Note that the hits for the other links up there haven't changed appreciably over time either. Yet, the pages displayed on these nav pages in total get far more traffic than these nav pages do, which means the vast majority of traffic to the pages listed (outlines, etc.) is coming to them via other routes.

    

   These nav pages aren't attracting users back to them, which strongly suggests that they need a redesign. How can we make them more useful so that users actually return to use them? I think Ancheta is right to make suggestions on a new approach. Because we are obviously missing something. The traffic just keeps passing by. I think we should stop some passers-by and ask them what their impression of these pages are and what they think they are for. We might be surprised. The Transhumanist    03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1. For some reason, we now have Portal:Contents/Overviews and Portal:Contents/Overview, both of which are linked to on various pages and templates. I assume some merging and/or cleanup is in order. -- RichardF (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Once again, The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) is interfering with the Contents test.

   The test had nothing to do with the Overview/Overviews links, which is what I was working on. I was unaware that all work on the entire contents system was supposed to stop because of the test. Please point out where the proposal specified that. And quit falsely accusing people. The Transhumanist    03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardF#Please_be_on_the_lookout
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Contents_pages_(header_bar)&oldid=413200560
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Contents/TOC_navbar&oldid=413200380
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Contents&oldid=413199887

I reverted these edits to allow the test to continue as is. RichardF (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nay

Discussion of main proposal

Now that the trail period is completed, the discussion can return to the merits of the main proposal, which is repeated below:

• Add topical links to the contents pages navigational header and footer templates - Template:Contents pages (header bar) and Template:Contents pages (footer box).
  • Those links would be as follows: Reference · Culture · Geography · Health · History · Mathematics · Nature · People · Philosophy · Religion · Society · Technology.

• Yay

1. Support - Clearly, Wikipedia users are interested in browsing the encyclopedia's contents by topic. During the two week trial period, the pages proposed for additions to the templates were viewed over 80,000 times. The overall encyclopedia contents navigation system should support this interest by including the proposed pages in the high-level contents navigation templates. -- RichardF (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - Seems like a great idea that already has a good deal of support for continued implementation. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Support - Sounds like a good idea to me. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support. Sure, I don't see why not. I'm not really understanding TT's original opposition though.. -- œ^™ 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? Comments

1. I have blocked the account which added a gratuitous word on the 1st line of the Contents navbar, and have removed the noise word. Please let me know if you need additional help. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nay

1. Oppose - The bloated nav bar is cumbersome and confusing. It is an example of link cruft. I think we should keep it simple. The Transhumanist    03:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.