Talk:Green exercise

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Deletion proposal

If you decide for delete, let me know and I'll make sure its transferred to v:Green exercise where we'll work on it further as a learning/research exercise. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod template because in my view there is now sufficient info at v:Green exercise to demonstrate that the topic is valid although obviously the current WP article is a stub in need of development. -- Jtneill - Talk 02:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of topic

I just received an email that "Green exercise: The psychological effects of exercising in nature" is being tweeted more than any other document on SlideShare right now. So we've put it on the homepage of SlideShare.net (in the "Hot on Twitter" section). Posting it here bec. the current delete proposal is largely based on claimed lack of notability of topic. Caveat: I'm not sure how many tweets it takes to trigger such messages - e.g., it could be as few as 2 in quick succession. -- Jtneill - Talk 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slideshare link

We are not allowed to link to copyright infringing materials. See WP:COPYLINK: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.

Some of the photos are fine, 1, 2, 3, 4 but others are not (e.g. the photo of Shawn Ray, the photos of Jules Pretty).

A powerpoint contains ~10-20% of a presentation. Most of the information is given verbally. If you don't have the script the slideshow is nearly useless.

Powerpoint is a crime against humanity. That is no joke but an objective fact. Polygnotus (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have different definitions of joke and fact. Your statements are not self-evident and require some elaborations.

Indeed they contain just a portion of information in a presentation, they can still sometimes be valuable if the original script is unavailable to public and better resources like this do not exist. I myself have learnt a lot just by reading slides that professors host on their personal page (of course that depends on how well it is written).

Even though it is not complete by itself, it can still offer some insight into how this concept is being discussed in academic settings.

No matter how strong you feel against powerpoint just like how i detest closed-source software, that is still not something that should be put into edit summaries. They are not for fighting vandalism, they are for collaboration. Any edit whose reason is not immediately self evident should be noted, or you may waste reviewers/pagewatchers' time. In this case, you may say that how this slideshow contains too little information, or that the information it contains are already in the article, or it is somehow copyrighted. Hym3242 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not somehow copyrighted. In the US, if you take a picture, you have the copyright (exceptions apply). We are not allowed to link to stuff that infringes on peoples copyright. This is a very important policy we have to follow. Polygnotus (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hym3242: Vandalfighters use scripts and tools that use things like WP:ORES and LiftWing. They will never even see my edits. Polygnotus (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's why I say they are primarily for collaboration rather than vandal fighting. Hym3242 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]