User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 6
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
← Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 →
I notice that you have reverted some of my recategorizations of pseudoscience articles, and I figured we should talk so that we don't continue to work at cross purposes. I've been working to clean up Category:Pseudoscience, which had previously consisted of a huge mess of articles that were hard to navigate. The guidelines discourage putting an article in both a category and its parent, although you're correct in pointing out that it's not strictly forbidden. The advantage of listing it in both is that it explicitly labels the article with "Pseudoscience" — but the drawback is that it also puts the article directly into the parent category, which would result in far too huge a list if every similar article were to do that. I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, since the article can simply be more prominently labeled as pseudoscience directly in the text itself and that would accomplish the same effect as the double categorization (and I would argue that it actually does a better job of it) but without creating a mess of the parent category. I'm open to hearing your position, if you disagree with my assessment of the situation. --Sapphic 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not realize at the time that these pages were recategorized as part of a greater plan to reorganize the Pseudoscience category. Unfortunately, I find a significant problem with pushing these articles to their lowest sub-category and not allowing a parent category in this case. Take for example, Flood geology, a concept born of the need to justify observed evidence of an Earth that is older than biblical claims by cherry-picking certain aspects of geology to best fit the story of Genesis and young Earth beliefs. By only categorizing this as "Creation Science" (a sub-category of Pseudoscience), it does not give proper weight to the notion that all creation science is pseudoscience without examining the categorical hierarchy (specific to Wikipedia). The solution of introducing text into every article naming the concept as pseudoscientific starts to put undue weight on the fact that it is pseudoscience (is that so prominent that it bears mentioning in the lead in every article in the category and every parent category for each article? This would be highly irregular and verbose if we were to apply such a measure to every sub-categorized page on Wikipedia). The category pages are coded such that the sub-category list is parsed above the article page list and so, I don't see an issue with the article being given both designations (e.g. flood geology is marked as both Psuedoscience and Creation Science). This means the category is still easy to navigate, even if it is heavily-filled with pages that are both within its category and its sub-categories. I believe it is worth highlighting some parent categories to be more transparent about a topic's considerations and this is a particular instance where it is warranted because unlike other category branches (for example, the War of 1812 would not need parental categories "Wars" and "American involved wars" if it is in the further sub-category "American-involved wars fought on American soil"), the fact that something is Pseudoscience is not as clear if all that is listed is "Creation Science" or "Energy therapies". ju66l3r 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the display of subcategories above member articles on the category pages, it's unfortunate that the 200 item display limit breaks them up in such an unintuitive manner. Even the text is confusing: "There are 43 subcategories in this category, which are shown below. More may be shown on subsequent pages." The first sentence implies that all 43 subcategories are listed below, but the second sentence contradicts that. Category:Pseudoscience has recently been trimmed to a single page so that subcategory paging isn't an issue there, but for larger categories it's confusing to have to page through multiple subpages to see all of the subcategories (which still usually number far fewer than 200). It would be more sensible to limit the display of member articles to 200 (or however many) but to display all the subcategories on a single page, or for the first subpage of the category to display the first 200 items but to start with all the categories first (so if there are fewer than 200 subcategories they'd all display on one page). But unfortunately that's not how the categories currently work, and so categories spanning more than one page are confusing and annoying to use.
- This bug report covers it. --Sapphic 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion on (e.g.) Category:Creation Science not being an obvious subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience but I still don't think categories should be used as labels on articles — they are primarily navigation aids, and should be looked at from the perspective of somebody browsing a category hierarchy, not somebody reading an individual article. To that end, I still think it's more important to keep the categories organized cleanly than it is to worry about how it affects the perception of the article itself. That's what the article text is for, and any relationship to pseudoscience can be addressed however is most appropriate in each particular case, whether in the intro, in the "see also" section, in its own section or some other part of the article, or wherever or however is most appropriate (and can be appropriately referenced — something else that doesn't work as desired in the case of category inclusion).
- I'm going to be trying to organize a more general discussion of these issues sometime soon, and will be holding off on any serious edits until then. You have clearly put much thought into this, and though we currently disagree on this matter, I certainly hope to see you there when the discussion gets going. Cheers, --Sapphic 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response. I'm happy to see a bug report concerning this because I really feel that what you're experiencing and what I see as a failure of the categorization system to serve as both a label and a navigational aid could be improved by just that bug fix alone. If this discussion is eventually resolved that the sub-category and only the sub-category should be used, then I only ask that you also add the appropriate changes to the lead, See Also, etc. section of the text for each article you update to maintain the continuity of describing the articles as pseudoscience and not solely changing the categorization. While you (and the official logic/purpose) may not consider categorization a set of keyword or descriptors for an article, it seems to me that it's clear to you that they are frequently used as such and I think it serves as a quick and important way for many users to evaluate each article's topic. ju66l3r 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the display of subcategories above member articles on the category pages, it's unfortunate that the 200 item display limit breaks them up in such an unintuitive manner. Even the text is confusing: "There are 43 subcategories in this category, which are shown below. More may be shown on subsequent pages." The first sentence implies that all 43 subcategories are listed below, but the second sentence contradicts that. Category:Pseudoscience has recently been trimmed to a single page so that subcategory paging isn't an issue there, but for larger categories it's confusing to have to page through multiple subpages to see all of the subcategories (which still usually number far fewer than 200). It would be more sensible to limit the display of member articles to 200 (or however many) but to display all the subcategories on a single page, or for the first subpage of the category to display the first 200 items but to start with all the categories first (so if there are fewer than 200 subcategories they'd all display on one page). But unfortunately that's not how the categories currently work, and so categories spanning more than one page are confusing and annoying to use.
Cherney -- notice
I see you are one of those interested in the Michael Cherney article. I asked a 3 months ago on the talk page for each individual statement in the article to be sourced: essential, considering the nature of the material. Whether I --or anyone --thinks the material is true is not relevant. If the various accusations can not be referenced by reliable published sources they must be removed, in conformance with out BLP policy. I would be fully justified in deleting this article immediately, but I'd rather see a good sourced article. You will better know how to find the sources than I. DGG 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was stumbling through the external links looking for specific instances where a non-reliable source was being quoted. I have no other interest in that article. Have at it. ju66l3r 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:38 Studios logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:38 Studios logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Freedomeagle 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. I had provided a rationale in the Summary section. Please be more careful when marking images for deletion in the future. Thanks. ju66l3r 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:38 Studios logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:38 Studios logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Henderson Jordan
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Henderson Jordan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Henderson Jordan. Kannie | talk 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. That page was redirected to Bonnie and Clyde at one point, but I don't keep it on my watchlist to see when people restubify it. ju66l3r (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of IPhony
I have nominated IPhony, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhony (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Delisi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Delisi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
