User talk:Gregbard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Vegaswikian (talk | contribs)
Line 50: Line 50:
We can ask at the [[Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard]] to clarify if you like. Thanks, [[User:Star767|Star767]] ([[User talk:Star767|talk]]) 22:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
We can ask at the [[Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard]] to clarify if you like. Thanks, [[User:Star767|Star767]] ([[User talk:Star767|talk]]) 22:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:GB asked me to reply that my comment, simply stated, was that categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
:GB asked me to reply that my comment, simply stated, was that categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:Vegaswikian, please take a look at [http://philpapers.org/browse/all PhilPapers Categories]. My effort has been to make links between ours and theirs. I really have to question the wisdom of your opinion, and I request that you reconsider. Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links. [[User:Gregbard|Greg Bard]] ([[User_talk:Gregbard|talk]]) 07:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


== Please help to seek other opinions on this disagreement ==
== Please help to seek other opinions on this disagreement ==

Revision as of 07:08, 25 March 2013

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Gregbard! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Fitch, V at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Greg Bard (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Steve9821. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Eliphalet Lockwood, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Steve9821 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm an "auto-reviewer" so created pages show up that way. More eyes on it can't hurt. I will be adding more refs when I get a chance. Greg Bard (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Abner Sibal.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abner Sibal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

annotations adding reference sources to categories

Hi,

I've asked some questions about Wikipedia:Categorization, and and it seems in general annotations reference sources such as you added to Category:Process philosophy and Category:Process theory should be used in the article space only and not on navigation pages.

Wikipedia:Categorization says: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations reference sources or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles."

Is there some sort of special reason why you think those categories need annotations reference sources, including external links, that justify not following the guidelines?

We can ask at the Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard to clarify if you like. Thanks, Star767 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GB asked me to reply that my comment, simply stated, was that categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian, please take a look at PhilPapers Categories. My effort has been to make links between ours and theirs. I really have to question the wisdom of your opinion, and I request that you reconsider. Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links. Greg Bard (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to seek other opinions on this disagreement

Let's seek consensus rather than you insisting on adding reference sources to categories. Star767 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]