Talk:Lee McIntyre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stub

Not a stub, anymore, what do you think? I will try to add some references that are not works by the author/subject of the article.Toandanel49 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I changed the status of the article to start after adding sections, a lead, and references.Toandanel49 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Although a WP:STUB generally only has one section, the number of sections is not necessarily the only thing that matters per WP:STUBDEF. In this case, though, I agree that this is probably more than a stub at this point per WP:DESTUB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing about trying to expand stubs, however, is to avoid simply adding details for the sake of adding details per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. For example, the "Lee C. McIntyre#Presentations" and the Lee C. McIntyre#Awards and recognition sections seem to be of borderline encyclopedic relevance and too much of this type of detail can give an article a CV feel, especially as stand-alone sections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

overlap of exact wording, is the second site pulling from Wikipedia?

The copyright violation tool shows that exact language for this site https://prabook.com/web/lee.mcintyre/3746962 is in this article. Is there a way to see if the prabook site is drawing from WP, as many sites do, so that everything is really okay? How do I tell the difference? Toandanel49 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

One way possible way might be to check to see if there are any archived versions of the other website which pre-date the content's addition to the Wikipedia article; if you can find such an archived version and the content is identical, then it's possible that it's a WP:COPYVIO. I say possible because the other website might have not been the origin of the content and content came from yet another source which has released the content under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Other website can, however, use content taken from Wikipedia, but they're expected to attribute it to Wikipedia per WP:REUSE and many probably don't. So, if you come across cases where it's hard to figure out per WP:SPCP, you can always ask for help at WP:COPYPROB or ask an administrator who works with copyright matters to take a look. I'll ping Diannaa since she very experienced in this kind of thing and probably can help sort it out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The overlapping content is job titles, book titles, and the like, and therefore there's no violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Duncanian position?

What is the Duncanian position? Toandanel49 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have searched Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Volume 1 and Duncan is mentioned once as a co author of a 1994 paper about complex structures. I can find no mention in the WP articles on philosophy of Science or Philosophy of Social Science, am I missing something? no reference to Duncanian position or Duncan mentioned anywhere that I can find. Toandanel49 (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the text He is a leading spokesman for the Duncanian position that there is no fundamental demarcation between the natural sciences and the social sciences either in their nature or their appropriate methodologies" as I cannot confirm it, or even find any reference to it anywhere. Toandanel49 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think removal was appropriate since it's unsourced and it isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead. I couldn't find anything about the term online, but it could be something named after one of these people, this person or be something completely unrelated to any particular person at all. There's no way to know without a cited source. You can ask about this at WT:PHIL if you want; maybe a member of that WikiProject knows who or what it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MarchJuly dates, links and life

thank you for your help in editing I am reading the MOS links that you send me. About use of dates, I always use this format, 11 November 2019 , because the name between the numbers is less often confused, especially when different countries make different assumptions about number order. The MOS states that I should use the date format that is already used in the article. I will try to do that from now on. Is that a correct understanding? If the automatic citation gadget puts in a different date format, should I edit it to match the article format? That seem like a lot of work, but I can do it if needed.Toandanel49 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toandanel49: Since there are people editing Wikipedia from all over the world of all different ages and backgrounds who speak different varieties of English, Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred date format or one preferred variety of English as explained in MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ENGVAR respectively. Generally, the most important things are to be consistent in both (e.g. MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:ARTCON) and also to try not exert any form of ownership over an article by forcing one's personally preferred version onto others; so, Wikipedia advises use to, for the most part, defer to the variety and format chosen by the first major contributor to the article or the one(s) established through consensus on the article's talk page. That's the principle of the matter, but such consistency can be difficult to maintain when people from all over the world of all ages and backgrounds are editing an article at various times over the years as well as when some automatic gadgets format something in one way.

Sometimes which variety and format to use can be sorted out by things like MOS:DATETIES and MOS:TIES. Since McIntyre is an American academic/author, and the article seemed to be written using American English, I just felt it would be better for the dates to also be in American English. It's not that using British English would be wrong grammatically, etc.; it's just that American English seem to be how the article was originally written. If this assumption is incorrect, then feel free to clarify.

The all numerical format is sometimes used for |access-date= and |date= parameters of citations, but it's not really something which should be used in the bodies of article (except maybe in tables, etc. where space is of a concern). Again, this was changed for consistency reasons to try and keep all of the dates formatting the same throughout the article. If you add a citation and the "automatic gadget" uses a different date format, you can go back and tweak things yourself (ideal) per WP:BOLD or you can leave them as is for others to tweak (acceptable) per WP:IMPERFECT. Wikipedia won't break down due to inconsistent formatting, but sticking with one can help keep articles from becoming a hodgepodge of different formats and styles as they get expanded over the years, and can make them easier to read. There's WP:NODEADLINE for article cleanup and it's constantly being done by people or WP:BOTs. You're only likely to run into problems if you are intentionally create formatting problems against consensus or the MOS:MOS so as to try and make some point.

There's no trick to adding WP:WIKILINKs. You just try to follow WP:UNDERLINK and avoid WP:OVERLINK; sometimes it's intuitive in that you just see something which almost certainly seems to have a Wikipedia article written about it. You can just format such things as a Wikilink and then check to see whether they are "blue" or "red" per WP:LINKCOLOR. Blue means a page corresponding to that name exists; so, all you need to do then is to check if it's actually the page you want to link to per WP:SPECIFICLINK. If red, then no page exists; so, then you have to assess whether a red link would be OK per WP:REDYES. It's a matter of self-assessment so don'T worry if you're wrong. Someone (or something) will either fix any link errors or let you know about them. Again, as long as you're not intentionally trying to mess things up to make a point, etc., other editors who are WP:HERE will assume good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful reply, it is a great help. Toandanel49 (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)