|
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.
|
Welcome!
Hello, RichardF/Archive/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason you chose to compress the list of educational topics, it looks messy and less organized this way IMO. Deathawk 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I used a format common to large lists, such as List of religious topics and List of philosophies. The List of education topics already is large and incomplete. To me and others who use this style of list, it's a matter of minimizing "waisted space." Rfrisbietalk 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm adding a comment on the topics talk page, but as it is about the changes you've made I thought I'd be polite and say hello here, too :-) Saint|swithin
Hi Rfrisbie, and thanks for all your work on the Portal:Education and education-related topics. However, I feel it would be better to discuss some of the changes you're making on the Education WikiProject or its talk page. Sure, this is a wiki, and you're entitled (and encouraged) to "be bold", and edit away, but a lot of this is about the best way of presenting and structuring information, which might be better off discussed first. I look forward to working more with you - I'm involved in the aforementioned project, and am very much interested in getting the education-related section(s) of Wikipedia up to a high standard. Cheers. Cormaggio @ 23:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cormaggio, thanks for the invite. My experience has been that the main place to discuss editing any particular page is on the page itself. That way, anyone interested in the page will be more likely to see the discussion. If there's an agenda for the project, I'm more than willing to go along with any general consensus, when it exists, notwithstanding being bold. :-) Regards, Rfrisbietalk 23:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to take this away from the discussion on the Categorization page. You wrote:
- Those all are fine points above for reasons to avoid loops. So show me how to resolve this.
- Classification: Education: Academia: Academic disciplines: Social sciences: Education:
I'm just starting to look at this. At first glance it does look like a very difficult cycle to break. Off the top of my head, I'm wondering if "Social sciences" applies to every subcategory of Education or just some subset. I'm a bit hampered because I don't know a lot about this whole area. Anyway, I'm going to look it over. I'll respond and look for any response on this page. JonHarder 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jon. I still say it's a self-referencing system, and "there's nothing wrong with that." :-) I come from the perspective of an educator with a specialy in evaluation and a good bit of experience with content analysis projects. Three distinctions I've seen in my work are "discipline" (e.g., "science"), "academic discipline" (e.g., "science program of study"), and "academic discipline education" (e.g., "science teacher education"). As a discipline, education typically is considered to be one of the social sciences. As an "academic discipline," it also can be seen as one of the professions/applied sciences. Finally, it's the pedagogy portion that goes along with the "content" of teacher education.
- If I were going to go for a "clean" classification hierarchy of categories and subcategories, I might do something like this.
- Classification: Disciplines: Science: Social sciences: Education: .. Academic disciplines: Science program of study:, Science teacher education program of study:, etc.
- The "loops problem" as I see it, is Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between "disciplines" and "academic discipline programs of study," and we both know it never will.
- I can live with "no loops" for the Education category. What do you thik of my "solution" at the top of Category:Education?
- One last thing. I'd also be interested in seeing your take on the meta- question I posed at the categorization talk page. If you "no loops" guys don't acknowledge any acceptable case, then the guidelines on the page itself need to be changed. If "something" is okay, then a good example should be given. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Your "clean" classification looks good. Do you see any problems implementing it that way? You may be on to something with your analysis of the loop problem: different disciplines come to Wikipedia with their own, sometimes clashing, ways of organizing things. These different strategies can't all be satisfied without tolerating some cycles. Add to that people like me who try to organize things using a common sense approach about what is more general and what is less, and it gets messy! (And I admit common sense has its limitations.)
Your solution to the loop problem is certainly an acceptable solution. As a further refinement of that approach, you might consider rewording to not even mentioning loops because people may not understand or care what that's about and it is a reference to Wikipedia, another thing to avoid!
With respect to self-referencing systems and the meta- question, There are certainly are any number of real world examples of cycles (food chain, water cycle) and self-referencing systems. I wouldn't necessarily translate real cycles into Wikipedia categorization. As for the meta- question, in Wikipedia I would be inclined to place meta-X in category X. In my profession, computing, I would probably do it the other way around.
As for the Education loop, this is one approach I see if Education is to be the most general category. Using your notation:
- Classification: Education: Academia: Academic disciplines: Social sciences: Pedagogy
- Classification: Education: Pedagogy
I don't understand the distnctions between some of the eduation subcategories, so Pedagogy probably isn't quite right, but the principle is the same. There is some subset of Education that will also fit in social sciences.
My professional background is software engineering and is the primary influence on my interest in categorization. In software engineering, object-oriented program specifically, one needs to discover and create abstractions of real-world problems. Good practice enforced by program language rules forces one to define these abstractions so that they related to each other without causing cycles in the organization of the computer program. To translate programming to Wikipedia, one might tolerate self-referencing within an article, but would never find cycles among the categories. This is all to explain where I'm coming from and shouldn't be considered a defense for my stuborness in this area!
Anyway, I try to enjoy the time I spend on Wikipedia and hope I'm not detracting from others' enjoyment. JonHarder 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Jon. I have a little understanding of object-oriented programming and relational databases, etc. and I've done a lot with Venn diagrams, decision trees, (it would be nice to be able to represent cats this way) broader-narrower-related terms, and such. I've also spend a lot of time thinking about meta-evaluation, fractals, and the reflective properties of the Cosmos, so I enjoy playing with these "puzzles" too. It's hard to keep track of that no self-wikifying in the main namespaces, but that's also why it's an issue. :-) Without being so precise in the category partitions and having no "related" categories structure, this is probably about as good as it's going to get. I'll let your suggestions percolate for a while and see what else I can come up with. The final category, pedagogy, doesn't work for me. Like you suggested, I think the real solution is multidimensional, not a "simple" hierarchy. That's why a decision tree actually would work better. I think the real soultion is to do a multivariate analysis of variance on every category by the number of comments in their talk pages about not talking about Wikipedia!!! Could you do that one and get back to me on it! ;-) Thanks! Rfrisbietalk 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, would you be willing to comment on Samuel Wantman's suggestion at the The classification of education and loops conversation? :-) Rfrisbietalk 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just been reading the 'knowledge' additions to the education page. I wonder if it would be more appropraite to have a smaller paragraph and link more to the 'knowledge' pages for the more detailed discussion of terms (data, etc). Whilst agreeing that education involves imparting knowledge (and I know of some who argure that it is a small part) a shorter paragraph may make the 'education' article more readable. Johnmarkh 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Johnmarkh, Thanks for your feedback. Feel free to cut it back as you see fit. :-) Rfrisbietalk 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see you created this template. I think it's seriously biased and if it's going to list anything, then it should list everything - so really it should just be a link to List of education articles by country. Please respond on template's talk page. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if you saw my comment on Talk:List of publications in psychology? I just don't see why this page needs to be in each an every subcategory, but maybe I'm missing something... Just wondering if you had any thoughts. (and as I said on the WikiProject, good work on the categorization!) /skagedal... 20:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I hadn't really noticed that until you mentioned it just now. Maybe someone did that before we had a "lists" category. Now, it makes sense to me to cut those back to the list category and the main category... I just added the "big" lists there. :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you added the Psychology category to the article on Psychometrics. The Wikipedia guideline on categorization states that an article should not be added to a category if it already belongs to one of its subcategories. Psychometrics is part of the Applied psychology category and other subcategories that are in the Branches of psychology category, which is in turn part of the Psychology category. I know this is a guideline and not a policy, and there are even some appropriate exceptions to the guideline, but I think that it applies in this circumstance. --Cswrye 18:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Cswrye. Thanks for your comments. :-) Take a look at Categorization of Psychology articles and subcategories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Category:Psychology, particularly the guidelines, THE TOPIC ARTICLE RULE — When an article is the topic article for a category. at Reasons for duplication, and Include subtopic articles for Branches and major Schools of psychology on the main category page. We've been discussing this very issue at the Psychology project (I see you're a member :-). What we're trying to do is organize the thousands of psychology articles into meaningful categories, yet still try to put the most important ones, particularly those related to "branches" and "schools" (the "top 200") front and center on the main category page, Category:Psychology. I believe Psychometrics is one of those important articles. That's why I bumped it up. I hope this make sense. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 19:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know that this had already been discussed. Thanks for pointing it out to me! --Cswrye 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Cool. What are your interests for the project? :-) Rfrisbietalk 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, could you please correct the human geography template where regional directs to regional science. It should be regional geography instead. See Talk:Human_geography. Thanks. GeoW 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you beat me to it! :-) Rfrisbietalk 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rfrisbie
I see that you have been contributing to psychology articles on Wikipedia.
Just to let you know that we are working on an academic psychology wiki for our professional community and their users.
This can be found at:
[1]
We would really welcome your input and ask you to join us.
We already have over 7000 pages up.
Orientation, help and community portal pages are available off of this link.
Please pass the good news onto anyone you feel would be interested.
We would particularly value your input as we need someone to help structure the Educational psychology section and help us get it underway properly.Lifeartist 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Joe, thanks for the invite! :-) I'll pass this along to Nesbit, who is the resident wikiexpert on Educational psychology. Rfrisbietalk 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Silence,
If you are going to recat projects, please stop breaking the chain to the major category such as you have done with Education and Psychology. Rfrisbietalk 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please clarify how and which of the recats are "sloppy", what the "chain" is, and how that chain has been "broken" so I can go and fix whatever problem you're alluding to. o_O; If you're merely saying that we shouldn't have categories under categories under Category:WikiProjects, then I don't see why: there's nothing new about such categories, and nothing wrong with them; I'm merely implementing more consistently what's already been the case for a long time now. None of the innovations are mine. But, as I said, if you could explain your request more clearly, I'd be glad to help. -Silence 11:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- It took me a while to figure it out, but I already reconnected the projects back to the categories, Category:Education and Category:Psychology. Rfrisbietalk 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see this is a misunderstanding; that's something rather different. I very much welcome you to join in on the discussion at Category_talk:WikiProjects#Okay.2C_this_is_getting_insane, where the conclusion has so far been that only article-space pages (not userpages, talkpages, wikipedia-space pages, etc.) should be categorized under article-space categories, though ordinary links may be appropriate (not to mention that this has long been the established practice on most of Wikipedia). I also encourage you to read my explanation for this immediately above, at #Since_when.3F, so you can respond accordingly if you disagree. -Silence 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have to go to work now, so I'll check it out later and get back to you. Sorry for being so abrupt. Rfrisbietalk 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's perfectly alright. There's no rush; we can work this out at your convenience. If it turns out that my edits were in error, I'll help revert them, though thus far it seems that they're consistent with established Wikipedia practices, as I believed when I undertook this task. We should be able to work out a suitable compromise upon your return. -Silence 11:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is here: Category talk:WikiProjects#Proposed template. Rfrisbietalk 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please can you avoid making very minor edits using AWB, such as only moving a stub tag or only adding/removing some whitespace. thanks Martin 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was looking to remove stub tags on long articles. and just clicking the tage moves when they came up. Is there a way for me to set AWB to ignore just the stub tag move? Rfrisbietalk 14:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you could just click ignore, but a much better idea would be to generate a list of long articles that have stub tags, which can be done with this software, or I could make it for you, as it involves downloading the 1.2GB database. Martin 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I was interested in doing it for the Psychology and Education projects, but if there's a way you can do for all of the stubs, that obviously would be much better. I'll stop doing that. :-) Rfrisbietalk 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've dumped a list you can import into AWB at User:Bluemoose/Unstubby stubs, this is longish phych and edu stubs, if you want any other lists (e.g. all long stubs or whatever) put a note on my talk page. thanks Martin 15:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll give it a go. :-) Rfrisbietalk 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've updated, note that it is possible some of these articles still deserve a stub tag. thanks Martin 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I do go over them before I remove a tag. Rfrisbietalk 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain why you think Epilepsy should have a See also link to Educational psychology. I can't see any relationship myself. Thanks. Colin°Talk 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's referenced in the article. See Educational psychology#Individual differences and disabilities. Rfrisbietalk 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I see what you are doing. Please, please stop! You appear to have added backward links into many of the articles that Educational psychology refers to. None of these articles needed those links, and in almost all cases, the link makes no sense at all (such as Epilepsy and even more bizarrely Multimedia).
Just because one article refers to another, does not mean that the referred article needs to link back. Almost all of the time, the back link isn't useful. If I really want to find all the articles related to Epilepsy then I can use the "What links here" toolbox link on the LHS. There are over 500 articles that link to Epilepsy - it would be pointless to list them all in the See also section. The See also section second-rate method of article interlinking in a wiki.
I strongly plead with you to revert all the edits made during your "clean up, added to see also using AWB" task. Can you use your tool to do this? If you don't then dozens of editors will wasting their time hand-reverting these bizzare edits. If you use an semi-automated tool like AWB, remember "edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it", and if you get it wrong, you have to be prepared to undo big time.
Please read the AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use and Wikipedia:Semi-bots - there are several points that I think you need to take on board. You should really get a bot account for this work (to separate it from your normal editing). There are several Wikipedia pages where editors collaborate to deal with articles on a big scale (e.g. stub articles). I suggest you join those teams and ensure there is consensus for your edits before you make them. Do a "Show changes" before saving and ensure your edit really is a useful contribution.
Cheers, Colin°Talk 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I removed Ed psych from Epilepsy. I'm not going to revert those other edits. We disagree on their relevance and I don't need consensus to do them. If others disagree, they can change them, just as I disagree with much of what goes on here and make changes. Some things stay, some things don't. Taht's the way it works. Rfrisbietalk 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I repeat that you would do well to read the above two pages. Such a bold attitude does not mix with using AWB. The consensus is that you do need consensus to make semi-automated edits on a large scale. You are in danger of stepping on a lot of people's toes. Regards, Colin°Talk
- Fine. I'll stop being bold. Rfrisbietalk 14:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I do realize I'm basically ignoring what I wrote (and you expaned on). After I get this current set sorted, I plan to run through everything and omit the "User" part so they sort correctly. I'm just sorting them all using {{subst:PAGENAME}} so it'll be easy to fix. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Glad you understand. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, there is an effort to redesign the "New pages" section of the CBB currently ongoing (so that the CBB is more compact). In the meantime, all these changes today are good :-) -Quiddity 04:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I figured since the changes weren't reverted within 30 seconds, they were at least "okay." I like how it looks in the sandbox. Are there any discussion pages that go along with this effort? ;-) Rfrisbietalk 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal. Only thing left to do in the sandbox-draft is find a fix for that mis-floating "edit" link for the "Notices" section. -Quiddity 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As for css help sections, i'm still finding out too. The site is primarily using common.css and monobook.css, and change-requests are generally brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), or at the individual CSS-talk pages if simple. The only generalist guideline (still in development) is Wikipedia:Accessibility. The people at Wikipedia:Help Desk might have more specific info? Hope some of that helps :) -Quiddity 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
School psychology and educational psycholgoy are two different disciplines in the United States. Educational psychologist do curriculum stuff.whicky1978 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi whicky1978, what do you recommend? Rfrisbietalk 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In the educational psychoglogy article, I would reccomend differentiating school psychology from educational psychology along those lines. The best source I have for this is a university catalog. I have some psychology text books that mention it tool. Maybe Peabody College website describes the differences. My speciality is school counseling. whicky1978 03:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I really don't know much about the distinctions you're making, so I wouldn't be a good one to write about them. I expect your comments on the educational psychology talk page are the best place to get the ball rolling. Since you've already done that, you'll probably get a better reply from the editors who have worked on that article, particularly Nesbit. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Seeing how you opposed the first question on Mackensen's Poll (arguably the most important), I would like to show you my essay on what should be done with userboxes. It is hopefully a new and unseen way of resolving this conflict.
Thanks,
// The True Sora 20:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi TheTrueSora,
I like your idea! In fact, I suggested something like it at Moving userboxes from Template space to User space. :-) I've seen similar proposals elsewhere too, e.g., User:Userboxes. Mackensen's Straw Poll seems to address it, at least at some level, with Question 5: Restrictions on UBX Library. It's also been discussed at various places, such as New Namespace?. Hopefully, with people of good faith like you, we'll eventually work it out. :-) Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Just a note to say thanks :) Your latest comment on WP:MACK said what was on the edge of my brain for ages, namely that the problem isn't with template space or userboxes per say, but user page guidelines not being enforced. Votestacking, userbox overuse, personal bios, are all related to WP:USER abuse, so all that needs to be done is apply WP:USER, (or update it if it's out of date) As I think WP:User covers this already, I believe all that's required is that it needs to be applied, either by community pressure or mfd, if ignored. No new policies or guidlines are required, just enforcement of the current ones. Does this make sense to you? Regards, MartinRe 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Absotively! :-) Rfrisbietalk 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a section the the WP:MACK page at Wikipedia_talk:Mackensen's_Proposal#Guideline_to_solve_this_problem_already_exists.3F, which I hope makes sense too :) Regards, MartinRe 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well done! :-) I've added my support to the page and suggested a straw poll. I would really hate to start another totally new page somewhere, though. Maybe you could ask Mack if he would be okay with a straw poll about your suggestions on a subpage there. Rfrisbietalk 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rfrisbie. Just so you know, your move may have opened a closed can of worms. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the stars were placed where they were as a compromise. I may rvert the change. I suggest you bring up the change on the proposal page. Check out the last couple of archive pages if you want some history. --evrik 16:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen fire and I've seen worms! Are you talking about Wikipedia:Barnstars and Wikipedia talk:Barnstars? Could you just give the gist of the issues there? Clearly, this also is related to some ongoing broader issues for userpages in general and, I'm guessing, similar to the userboxes banter. Rfrisbietalk 17:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rfrisbie. I've noticed your input in some of the userbox debates, and I'd like to give you a link to Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates, where we're trying to make some sense of what you called "the web of issues" involved. If you'd find it interesting or helpful, that's cool; if you can help improve it in any way, that's even better. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I put it on my watch list. I'll take a look at the new discussion page. However, my current inclination, as I noted at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Tolerance in the Wikipedia community, is that the process of userbox policy debates at Wikipedia verges on being fatally flawed. Time will tell if a workable set of policies can be fashioned out of what I affectionately think of as "Dodge City diplomacy." ;-)
- I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in the past, e.g.,"20:28, May 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (Any speedy deletion criteria specifically targeting userboxes are premature)" [2]. However, when I looked for it on the page and the archives, I couldn't find it. in fact, several entries are missing from both the main discussion page and the archive. As an administrator, can you help me determine what happened to it? I certainly hope nothing is amiss. That would be a very serious situation. Rfrisbietalk 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm looking into it now. I moved all those sections myself, and I certainly didn't mean to drop any sections but one, which was actually nonsense - consisting of one inane comment by an anon and my fatuous reply. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. They're all at the talk page of the page I pointed you to, as I indicated here. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think there's something more I can do to draw attention to that bit of refactoring? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I finally found it. I didn't expect it to be on the talk page of the new page. The new "summary" page also includes a "Discussion" section. That seems inappropriate to me. If the page is intended to be an NPOV characterization of the debate, then the contined debate belongs on the talk page. I would have preferred the summary to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, since that's it's main topic. That way, a bread crumb link would be at the top of the new page. Rfrisbietalk 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I suggested a subpage, people were against it. Those same people later said "let's move to a separate page", so my first instinct was to make it a non-subpage. Plesing everyone is tricky, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Close enough. I just posted some "nevermind news." :-) Rfrisbietalk 20:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
|
