User talk:Infogiraffic/Competence sidebar

Organization principle

Hello Infogiraffic, I saw that you created this template recently. I'm not sure I understand the organization principle behind it. What is "Instruments" supposed to mean? In what sense are as diverse things as "Job", "Metaphysical necessity", and "Luck" instruments? Is "Trait" meant in a psychological sense, i.e. Trait theory? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, all principles are open to correction. I personally keep renaming ideas continually. There isn't one definition that I particularly stick with. Maybe 'factors', 'ways', 'means', 'developments' or 'arguments' would be better suited than 'instruments'. Same goes for 'traits', we could replace it with 'characteristics', 'attributes' or something else... I can foresee this template growing towards a natural consensus and I will probably be fine with that. Infogiraffic (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response suggests that, currently, there is no clear organizing principle. I don't think it's a good idea to insert a half-finished template into articles, especially if the template goes right into the lead and the articles have many page views. I would suggest that you keep working on the template until it is in a presentable state. Before adding it to many articles, you should probably get some feedback, for example, by asking at the relevant Wikiprojekts. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a (well-populated) WikiProject as of yet. Infogiraffic (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suggest that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the academic literature on the topic before attempting to make this kind of template. The organization shouldn't be based on improvisation as one goes along. For example, the terms "instrument", "development", and "argument" mean very different things. They are in no way interchangeable. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to familiarize myself over the last couple of weeks by constructing the page Competence (polyseme). Infogiraffic (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be based on what the reliable sources say on the subject. If there is wide agreement in them that one of the most central aspects of competence is called "instruments" then it makes sense to include it. In that case, it should be clear to you and ideally also to the reader what "instruments" means. If reliable sources state that metaphysical necessity is an instrument of competence then it makes sense to include it. I don't think that this is the case.

In relation to Wikiprojects: for this topic, Wikiproject Psychology would probably be the best match. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Infogiraffic (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the problem still remains. Or maybe you are seeing something and I don't. The section now called "Tools" seems to be a random selection of vaguely related topics. Some of them could be considered tools (if the term is understood in a wide sense) but this is not the case for most. If the section "Traits" is supposed to refer to the psychological traits described by trait theory, I don't know why it is included. If it refers to something else, I don't know what it refers to.

I would go ahead and remove the templates added so far to articles until this is solved. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to solve this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Performance traits, as defined by D.C. McClelland (1951), seem to be in line with the examples... as well as the article itself. Infogiraffic (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would probably be better to call the section "Performance traits" to avoid confusion with other meanings of the term "trait". Is this categorization by McClelland widely used in the academic literature? If not then it's probably not justified to dedicate a full section to it. I checked a few of the linked articles from this section: they don't mention the term "performance trait" or McClelland.

As a sidenote: the usage of sidebars in the lead is generally discouraged unless there is a good reason otherwise for a specific article, see MOS:LEADELEMENTS. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]