Talk:Implicit cognition
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AbbySam8.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
2007-12-9 Automated pywikipediabot message
edit | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
Science News resource
edithttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336101/title/Magic_trick_reveals_unconscious_knowledge "Magic trick reveals unconscious knowledge; People 'know' what they don't believe they've seen, study shows" by Laura Sanders Web edition November 14th, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Such severe problems that starting again seems like the best idea
editThis article is nowhere near the quality that one expects of an encyclopaedia. Much of the grammar is appalling, much of the tone is unencyclopaedic, and even the presentation is substandard, with both walls of text and weird single-sentence fragments. Rewriting it to correct the textual errors would take a considerable amount of time, and would only be a superficial cleanup anyway; it is extremely unlikely that when the superficial aspects are so poor, the actual topic is dealt with satisfactorily. The effort of a rewrite therefore does not seem worthwhile.
I suggest that the current text simply be removed in its entirety and replaced with a stub, which can be expanded whenever anyone with the relevant expertise and writing skills should appear. Sankura (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Anything salvageable?
editAs it stands the article seems pretty unreadable with the walls of text. With the rambling descriptions of tangentially related studies it comes across as pretty unencyclopedic. It looks like the article was nominated for deletion a while ago, but it was kept. I think the best solution at this point may be to just outright gut several sections and salvage the coherent bits. A.Wild.Jellyfish (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)