Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

; Archives
	pre-12/2003 and renaming poll; Origins dispute; up to January 1, 2005; up to January 1, 2006; up to May 1, 2006; up to Aug 7, 2006; up to January 31, 2007; up to August 23, 2007; up to September 19, 2007; up to April 10, 2008;

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
La Isla Bonita	Review it now
Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song)	Review it now

Shortcut

WT:FA

Flora and fauna section

I carved this out of the Biology and Medicine section. SandyGeorgia reverted it because (and it seems only because) I had not discussed it on the talk page and he had some difficulty with edit conflicts. I don't really think I need to discuss things on talk pages before I act. This is certainly a new rule I haven't heard about. I think the change was sensible, I gave the reason, and I think that SandyGeorgia should put the page back in the state it was. In future she should say what's actually wrong with changes in substance, not the rigamarole of following what she'd like to see on talk pages. I expect she'll have some objection or other though. Wikidea 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon! Wikidea 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, for the record, it's a she not a he - the a page like Featured Article page has had some degree of thought go into it, and there is sporadic discussion on design and categorisation from time to time. Consensus is generally a good idea in these cases. I suspect some are not keen on overcategorisation and feel that more cats in the green box at top may make it less user-friendly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be offended, Wikidea. Reorganization of this page is a perennial notion, and current consensus is that the current organization is appropriate. Cursory glances at the talk pages here, T/FA, etc. identify this as the case, which is, I suspect, at least partly why Sandy referred you to the talk page for discussion. Although there’s no requirement that changes be discussed prior to being made, it is courteous to do so, especially when they are likely to be contested. We’re now rightly on the talk page, so let’s discuss. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well clearly the biology and medicine section is too big, and the flora and fauna section is about half of that. It should be put into its own. I spent about 20 minutes doing it, and I suggest that SandyGeorgia puts it back. Moreover, I don't see why she could not discuss whether to put it back or not rather than reverting. To me, that's pretty lazy. :( Wikidea 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidea, you should be aware that the FA pages are a bit different than other pages, in that the FA process is guided by an FA director and his delegates, and is and must be more stable than other processes on Wiki. Unilateral changes not supported by discussion are likely to be reverted. Now to discuss. I have my eye on separating the bio/med category when it reaches about 200. How to divide it needs to be the subject of discussion; the line between flora/fauna and biology isn't as clear as you made it, you left some things that might belong in flora/fauna, I'm not sure that's the way we would divide if/when the time comes anyway, page division has to be mirrored at WP:FFA, and before deciding how to divide, we'd have a thorough discussion with the content experts in the bio/med area, like Casliber, who is one of the Wiki experts across that category. Personally, I think the discussion is premature, since the cat could have a different composition when it reaches 200, but it's time for Casliber to put on his thinking cap. (edit conflict, no, it's not being put back without broad discussion, and please think twice before calling me "lazy".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For cas (who works on medical articles, animals, plants, mushrooms, birds and dinosaurs, so is represented across this catogory and probably has good ideas on how to divide it if/when the time comes):

The division proposed by Wikidea
Wikipedia:Version 0.5
(add here, other ideas) ...
(If we go Flora and fauna, is it a separate cat or a sub-cat of Biology? HATE the idea of mucking up this page like the GA pages with sub-cats. Is there a better way to add a separate cat?)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the bio/med cat is currently at 169, with AIDS and Action potential at FAR with dubious prognoses. I'm not sure if leaving the bio/med category so small is the best split; would like to hear from Cas on other options. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that subcats are a bad way to go. I think Wikidea's idea has merit though I am not thrilled with the name and then wonder about where to put bacteria etc. OTOH a small medical section doesn't worry me too much - I suspect it will be growing soon and is still comparable with the food and drink section. We could just leave biology where it is and move medicine down the page, I mean other sections are strictly speaking subcats of others but not listed as such. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On some of the articles, I'm not clear on the biology/medicine dividing line. Are you saying to only separate out medicine, and leave all of the rest of Biology together? Do you see a clear split between biology and medicine for every article? I have problems there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I..I don't think the split is a good idea but will be happy to help out if a consensus points that way. I think this was discussed about a year ago if I recall. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think heraldry could equally go with flags which would even those two sections. Anyway, if the consensus is to split I am happy to help. I am not hugely fussed.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidea's rearrangement missed at least Massospondylus, Procellariidae and Thylacine, and I would have thought Homo floresiensis would have been a better humanoid to assign to "Flora and fauna" than Norman Borlaug, but I don't think it is a bad idea for a split per se (although I'd prefer "Banksia, Birds, Mammals, Dinosaurs and Fungi" so we could pack Cas off in his own little compartment). Having a small Bio/Med category might encourage people to try and fill it up a little. Yomangani ^talk 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about bacteria? So, the conclusion is to carve out a very small bio/med category? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (And, Yomangani, if you want pack Cas away, what are you going to do with Schizophrenia and Asperger's ? We're back to one group. :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a nice way to refer to Cas. None of the classification systems include bacteria in the same domain as flora and fauna, so its safe to leave them in the Bio/Med section (until there are enough for their own section - colonies of bacteria articles can double in size every 10 minutes under optimal conditions). Yomangani ^talk 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to connect the dots. Cas, Schizophrenia, animals, plants, and colonies of mulitplying bacteria ... DID ? Ok, so you support a corrected Flora/Fauna group (to include those missed), a small bio/med group (that includes bacteria), and no sub-cat? Do you think we should divide now, or wait until the entire group is larger? As of now, that would leave a very small bio/med group. If you and multiplying cas agree on this, I'll do a mockup and ask others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as my (soon to be multiplying) bishops don't get shoved in with the bacteria, that sounds fine. Fauna they are, but not slimes. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biology/medicine split

The whole thing still isn't clear to me, because it you separate Flora and fauna, then the cat name Biology and medicine is misleading, unless Flora and fauna are a sub-cat, which we don't want. If we instead separate only Medicine, and leave everything else under a cat named Biology, we have some other division issues (which goes where). Which is better ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'd call 'em biology and medicine. I am not fussed if one is strictly speaking a sub cat of t'other (look at video games and media (can't call it Flora nd Fauna as Evolution then doesn't fit.). I'd put microorgs notable mainly for their human pathology into medicine. Articles appearing to be fence-sitters you can ask about here. That'd be my game plan, if you think it is a good call :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I'll do mockup, unless you think it's too soon. Basically, we'll only be carving out about 50 articles. Also, should we call it Health and medicine, since that's what Wikipedia:Version 0.5 does ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. good title as we (one day) may get nutrition etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we already have Paleolithic diet in Food. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like separating Health and medicine from Biology will only move about 35 articles (I assume things like DNA, RNA stay in Biology). Is it worth it? have it in a spreadsheet; I'll have it in a mockup in a bit so you all can check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current total is 169; split yields 134 Biology, 35 Health and medicine.

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad - H&M is still bigger than Food & Drink and Mathematics...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it many times, but wasn't sure it made sense to separate only 35. Do I have the split correct? Can you check before I ask Raul to look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is tricky with things like action potential but then I am a doctor so automatically think of a few general biological things as medical by default. Looks all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas; I'll ask Raul to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could separate Flora and fauna off and rename Biology and medicine to Biological sciences and medicine. I think the division there is simpler than deciding what is biology and what is medicine, and there is no need for a subcategory. Both of you have already run into trouble deciding where to put DNA and action potential. Where would the hypothetical FA Human skeleton go in the proposed Bio/Med division? The division should be for the ease of the reader: will they be able to spot the section with the articles they are interested in straight off? Yomangani ^talk 08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul has the same problem with Flora and fauna that I did (see his talk page); maybe your suggestion solves that, but the problem is to avoid overlap. I'm not so keen on the whole idea of separating at all if it leads to issues. I defer to Cas on Human skeleton, but I see it fitting into Health and medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything vaguely to do with the human body could probably fit in either Medicine or Biology. Perhaps not splitting is the easiest option. Yomangani ^talk 09:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Yomangan's split and "sandboxed" it in Sandy's sandbox, linked above. –Outriggr § 23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dogriggr in my sandbox! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is he in the right section? Yomangani ^talk 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get out your plastic bag and pooper scooper! –Outriggr § 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No; you'll have to hold it while you're in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) - ugh, I think leaving and then nagging the rest of us to stop writing biology FAs...no wait....'aaaargh!!! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will you two please stop filling up the bio/med category? Freeze the category where it is so I can stop worrying about how to divide it :-) I periodically put myself through this, use a lot of time messing around in spreadsheets, and always decide to just leave it alone until 200, and face the music then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thought this was a simple matter! Fie oh fie on me. I think it's fairly clear that the category would be well divided in the way that I suggested from the start. You have things that are green and plantish - and that's flora - and then you have things that grow hair or go meow or something - and that's fauna. And then you have all the science pages on biology and medicine separate. It's really not worth it to wait till 200. I think you should just admit I was right. Other categories are smaller than that. And chemistry and physics have their own categories. Why not biology? Come on Sandy, I am right, just put it back! Wikidea 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, yes I do think it's lazy to just revert things when you could have taken the initiative to write something on the talk page. That doesn't mean I don't think you do a tremendous amount of work reviewing FAs all the time. But I still think it's lazy to revert and not explain, and make someone else start the process. I personally don't see what the difference is between this page and any other. If the changes are good then it should stay. Wikidea 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have your proposal, and two more proposals in my sandbox (Casliber's and Yomangani's); Raul disagrees with your proposal, as do several of us. When Raul has a chance to opine on the other two, we'll make the changes if necessary; in the meantime, there's no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that classic sciences subjects (physics, chemistry, biology) should go in their own right. When you do biology at school, you don't learn Flora and Fauna, do you? And my suspicion is that this is the only encyclopedia where it's put together. I've got no problem with separating out health and medicine as well from biology; but that doesn't mean that there's a difference in kind between biology and ff. I'm completely correct on this, and I think that you (and Raul) need to just agree with me and do the move, instead of saying you disagree but not why! Btw I note that both "food and drink" and "computing" are two rather small categories given exclusive placement. Does this reflect the priorities of Wikipedia editors? ;) Wikidea 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections, take two

<Moved to WT:FAC#Lead sections, take two.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directors

What's the deal with the director of featured articles and his assistants? Doesn't having ranks and titles go against the whole wiki community model? I kind of understand why we need sysops to outrank the rest of us, but for featured articles, why can't we just use consensus like everywhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.55 (talk • contribs) 01:30, April 12, 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is used. The featured article director doesn't choose the featured articles; he simply chooses which ones appear on the main page, and he and his delegate direct GimmeBot to close nominations once consensus has been reached. At least I think that's how it works; correct me if I'm wrong. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki language link (request)

Please can you add simple:Wikipedia:Very good articles?

Well done on the page, and thanks very much, Drum guy (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done BuddingJournalist 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whack !!

Done <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the section "Literature and theater"

I think it should be renamed to "Literature, theater and comics", for the section contains articles about comics as well. Also the section "Media" should be renamed to "Movies, radio and television", since books, booklets, pamphlets, brochures, magazines are also media (this is just the draft, for media terms, organizations and journalism are related to media as well. If some of articles about them are FAs, then the section "Movies, radio and television" does not fit them. Maybe a new section called "Media studies and journalism" can solve this problem......)--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with your proposed names. First, comics are a form of literature, so that name is perfectly fine as is. Second, the "Media" section contains articles that do not relate to "movies, radio, and television" at all. As you suggest, some of them are related to print journalism. George Washington Dixon, to give one example, was a 19th century singer and newspaper editor. As for your proposed name "Media studies and journalism", why separate the two? Journalism is a part of the media, so the succinct name "Media" is more than adequate. — Dulcem (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in English comics are literary books, but in Chinese we rarely say comic books are literature. Also literary books are essentially media, so I think the title of the section "media" is inappropriate.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the English Wikipedia, so English rules apply to whether something is "literature" or not. :) As for your second comment, I see where you are coming from. But I think to split hairs as you are proposing will sacrifice elegance for little else. Because both "Media" and "Literature and theatre" exist separate from one another, it's fairly obvious that articles on novels, comics, and the like belong in the latter category. You can view it as a subcategory of "Media" if you wish. — Dulcem (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article template

Kozuch has been using AWB and in the process moving the featured article template to above the categories. I asked him about it and he told me that that's the default setting in AWB. I seem to recall being told that the featured template should be last in the article. Does it matter? Mike Christie (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so ... but I'm not sure. When we talked about it before, I think it was in the context that it shouldn't be at the top of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely object to Philosophy being bundled together with Psychology -- what's the link?

Philosophy and Psychology are about as different as Biology and Physics. In fact more different, because Biology and Physics are both sciences, whilst Philosophy is a world less scientific than Psychology. Why on earth are these bundled together in the Featured Article categories? Most philosophers know hardly any psychology, and vice versa. Many people who study philosophy never even touch on psychology, and vice versa. What is going on here? Can we separate these two disciplines please? --Aquillyne-- (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm on this page, I think that Aquillyne is quite right. They should not be together because they have nothing to do with each other at all. I read that discussion, but it's not very convincing! The real problem, of course, is that both subjects are really small, which is surprising. I would have expected many more philosophers to be around with spare wikitime on their hands. Philosophy should be on its own. But it would be more suited to the same category as language or mathematics than psychology. Unfortunately the Ludwig Wittgenstein page, which would shed some light on the matter, got de-FA-ed a few months ago, which was a real pity (and I think was a bit unnecessary actually). Wikidea 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers with spare wikitime? If only! That said, there is a rather good WikiProject I may deign to inform of this discussion. --Aquillyne-- (talk)

Pity no-one has worked up Carl Jung to FA status then....I personally feel they have more in common than some other combinations but the problem is leavng two really stubby sections on the page. WHat arrangement would you propose? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I guess one could place philosophy with religion and rename it philosophy, religion and mythology (we could leave out the mysticism really), and place psychology...with medicine? I think this is more awkward and the two have more in common with each other than this latter arrangement though. Just ruminating Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archives; that's exactly what we were trying to avoid. Parapsychology is not biology or medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but I really do not find any good reason in those archives for what it is now! Dewey came up with his system when psychology was in its infancy. I see the problem though: nobody wants psychology to be associated with their subject! On another note though Sandy, if we're following Dewey's system, then that would seem a pretty good ground for separating flora and fauna out from biology and both from medicine. :) Wikidea 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem was not that no one wanted psychology; the issue was that 1) we had essentially no psychology articles (we now have one, Reactive attachment disorder) so it didn't warrant a category, and 2) we needed to find a home for parapsychology. Big argument over whether it went with Medicine or Religion, solved by going the Dewey route of combining Psychology and Philosophy, so that parapsychology felt at home. It was quite contentious, and I don't see a good reason to rock a carefully negotiated boat. Biology and medicine, if and when Raul weighs in; there is no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too; but the problem is definitely that nobody wants psychology. Applause for carefully negotiating the boat! I think I'm going to stop watching this page. Maybe one day flora and fauna will just be separated, when the daffodils start to sprout for spring and the pigs start to fly. :) Wikidea 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion however it appears archaic. The fact is that both Philosophy and Psychology are, these days, significantly large and disparate subjects. Both now also have a significant number of pages on Wikipedia. And it's simply ridiculous to bundle them together: I almost guarantee that no Psychology page will link to a Philosophy page, and vice versa, except in a very trivial way. No university has a Psychology and Philosophy department combined. Let's face it, the subjects are distinct. Parapsychology, on account of being "para", does not instantaneously become Philosophy. This is an awful misunderstanding of what Philosophy is in the first place, which we ought not to associate with Wikipedia. Parapsychology is still Psychology, or otherwise it needs to go where articles on horoscopes and clairvoyants go. Nevertheless, there is no point is spoiling the categorisation system just to make space for Parapsychology. For the most part, Psychology and Philosophy are still entirely separate, even if this small area does represent an overlap. Chemistry and Biology overlap all the time, but I don't see those being put together. As a Philosophy student myself, I reiterate: I absolutely object to my subject being bundled in with Psychology — not because I don't like it, but because it's just simply got nothing to do with what I study. --Aquillyne-- (talk)

We have one psychology article, two if you include parapsychology; we don't have any category on the page with only one or two articles. We followed Dewey decimal because it worked for the articles we have. If we had a lot of psychology articles, or a lot of philosophy articles, they would warrant separate categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that psychology and philosophy have nothing to do with each other is silly. The connection is especially clear in the case of philosophy of mind. Psychology is just more scientific (though still not a very 'hard' science). They are distinct fields, of course, but what do you suggest is more closely related, since we have to bundle it with something? I won't say how I feel about the fact that we have so few articles in this field and trillions on video games and the Simpsons... Richard001 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree that it's a shame there aren't enough Philosophy featured articles. I even agree it's a shame there aren't enough Psychology featured articles. But this is still no reason to bundle them together. If there was only 1 featured article on Maths and one on Botany, would you create a combined category "Maths and Botany"? Of course not. The Dewy Decimal conflation is archaically out of date.

In reply to the previous comment suggesting that Philosophy of Mind represents an overlap with Psychology - this is a weak point to make. For a start, even if Philosophy of Mind did overlap with psychology, as I have already stated, there being one area of overlap is not a reason to bundle the whole two subjects together. Biology and Chemistry overlap a lot more, but are separate. Secondly and more importantly, even within the Philosophy of Mind, the overlap with Psychology is absolutely minimal. I have studied Philosophy of Mind in detail for three years, and have never once looked at a Pscyhology book or heard reference to a Psychologist. Philosophy of Mind is to Psychology like Metaphysics is to Physics. The Philosophy of Mind deals with the fundamental nature of it - is it physical, non-physical, an entity separate from the brain, or what? Psychology deals with the much more scientific, physical and practical side of neurology. The questions asked in each subject don't even cross over. --Aquillyne-- (talk)

There is certainly an argument to be made for putting philosophy and psychology together as disciplines. Psychology grew out of the philosophy of mind, and most of the founders of psychology were also either philosophers or are philosophically important. There is also the issue of Hume and Nietzsche, who considered themselves as much psychologists as philosophers (and who were also historians in their own right). It is also specious to argue that the two disciplines will not have links between the two in Wikipedia. Cognitive science/cognitive psychology is more philosophically relevant now than ever, as is moral psychology.

However, it is quite correct that the two have grown into separate disciplines. Galileo, after all, was important to the founding of modern philosophy, but we don't insist on grouping either astronomy or mechanics with philosophy. And there is no controversy over placing Hume and Nietzsche firmly within the category of "philosophy" these days. Finally, the parapsychology issue seems strange to me. Where does it go? Under psychology, of course! Just as pseudophilosophy would go under philosophy. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [I agree with this comment about article placement! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I forgot to deal with the number of articles issue, so I'll just respond to my own comment here. On the one hand, we don't have a pressing space limitation; it wouldn't be a problem to have a heading for psychology with only two articles under it, though it might be a little embarrassing for those in WikiProject Psychology. On the other hand, I can see why one might want to keep philosophy and psychology together until the latter has enough articles to fill out a substantive section of its own. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physics or rather natural science grew out of Philosophy - so what? As you say, they are now very separate disciplines. I mentioned that most Philosophy pages will not link to Psychology pages and vice versa - this of course admits of exceptions, but is largely true. The lack of links is of course no argument, but merely highlighted to reinforce what I'm trying to demonstrate: that Philosophy and Psychology are not, in any way, part of a singular category.

The number of articles is actually besides the point, but take a look: Computing, Food and Drink, and Mathematics, to name a few, all have roughly the same number of articles (or much less) than there are in the "Philosophy and psychology" category. Why don't we make a "Food, Drink and Mathematics" category to solve this space issue? The answer is because it would be ridiculous, and the same applies here. If we separated out Philosophy and Psychology we'd still have a fair amount of articles in each; and if not, some WikiProjects need to get to work! Regardless of this, if we do not separate out the two subjects, Wikipedia simply looks ridiculous. Philosophy is unequivocably not Psychology, and that really is all there is to it! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{ahem} You'll notice that I did not take a position on the issue in my above comment, but rather offered some considerations for both sides. So I can do without the hostility, thanks. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hostility intended, I apologise if that came across. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I must have misunderstood your enthusiasm. I understand your point about computing, food and drink, and mathematics; but surely philosophy and psychology are at least more closely related than those? That is, some connections are more tenuous than others, and the connection between computing, food and drink, and mathematics is so tenuous as to be plainly absurd. I do not think the same can be said of the connection between philosophy and psychology, even if we ultimately decide that it is inappropriate for our purposes here. Indeed, some might find that amalgamation as equally (un)problematic as art, architecture and archaeology. But of course, you might have just as much problem with that association. It would be unfair to expect you to make all of your complaints at once.

Finally, I do not think that you have parried the thrust of the "number of articles" argument quite as well as you seem to think. The argument is not that all sections should be made to have a similar number of articles, but that there should be some minimum number of articles to warrant a subject having its own section. However, your example does make plain the fact that we would not (and so, perhaps, should not in this case) put categories together solely to satisfy such a requirement. And to take it further, I would wonder why anyone would think we have such a need; after all, we are not facing the space limitations of print encyclopedias.

Again, I am not taking a position on anything here, just examining the arguments. The primary reasons that have been offered for keeping things as they are seem to be (1) it is the result of a previous negotiation, and (2) there aren't enough articles to justify a split. The best counterpoints to these positions seem to be that (A) the previous negotiation may have been wrong—there is no good reason to think that parapsychology should not go under psychology if philosophy and psychology were separated—and (B) we do not have a space limitation that makes number of articles a legitimate issue—the worst case scenario is that the need to write high quality psychology articles and run them through FAR is exposed. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. However Philosophy and Psychology ARE absurdly different -- not as absurd as the link between Maths and Food, but absurd nonetheless and that's my main point here. (Even if they aren't "absurd", "tenuously linked" is still bad enough). Psychology is MUCH better amalgamated into Medicine, Science, Neuroscience, Biology, etc. It really just is not Philosophy. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going in circles. If you put our *one* psychology article (reactive attachment disorder) into biology and medicine (it's not a medical condition :-), then where are you going to put parapsychology? Using the Dewey Decimal combination of psychology and philosophy was the only way we found in the past discussion to address all of the issues. Sounds like someone doesn't want to be associated with attachment disorders ??? Or are editors who don't have to maintain this page daily suggesting we should create a new category to accomodate *two* articles ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: put the psychology article in a category all on its own, so it looks lonely. It might inspire more people to work psychology articles up to FA. To respond to your other points: a disorder sounds awfully like a condition; we don't have to consider parapsychology because there aren't any FA'd articles on it yet; if there are, we put them in a Psychology category alongside the rest of Psychology. And yes, we should create a category to accommodate two articles, because it's a hell of a lot better than shoving them in against a category they simply don't belong in. I fail to see why no one is making a bigger deal of this point. Philosophy is not' Psychology and there is literally no reason to bung them together: as discussed, the Dewey Decimal system is an entirely arbitrary way of relating the two that is out of date. Personally, I propose creating a new Psychology category with 1/2 entries. So what. This is a wiki - it will grow. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, but having some experience with Psychology articles on Wiki, I can assure you it will take much more than a lonely category to get any quality psychology articles written on Wiki. (Same problem at the GA level, the WikiProject level, every level in psych.) And, parapsychology is an FA, so you're wrong on that one (did you read the archived discussions?). Any grouping system is somewhat arbitrary; we chose one that works for the articles we have, and single-article categories don't make sense, don't help our readers, and create a maintenance and reabability issue. 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but you still haven't addressed the overriding issue here that there is no reason to choose Philosophy as the category to bundle Psychology into. (Dewey Decimal is not a reason considering 1. we aren't using that system anywhere else, and 2. the combination of the two is totally out of date and no longer makes any sense). Why can't we choose a more appropriate category? Such as: Biology and medicine, Language and linguistics, Culture and society (the latter being I think the best bet). You might object to compounding Psychology with those categories because they aren't Psychology -- well, that's precisely what I'm trying to get across here with Philosophy! There is utterly equal reason to mix Psychology with Medicine (more, I think) than to mix it with Philosophy. It seems to me as though what's happened here is someone has bundled together the two unlucky subjects with few articles that he doesn't understand very well. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say no to bundling Psych with Phil. They are not really as alike at all in the final analysis. This bundling is more a result of popular impressions. Wouldn't it make more sense to bundle Math and Phil? They are both study of abstractions. Furthermore Math is significantly different than other natural sciences. Philosophy should stand on its own. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no one yet in this discussion has proposed a solution that encompasses the only articles in question: reactive attachment disorder and parapsychology. Proposed groupings that don't address those two articles just aren't workable. Neither are medical/bio conditions. Please read the full archives before proposing solutions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite true. It has been proposed that the "philosophy and psychology" category be divided into separate "philosophy" and "psychology" categories, with reactive attachment disorder and parapsychology going under the "psychology" category. Indeed, Aquillyne has quite emphatically noted that psychology shouldn't be added to Biology and Medicine, but has taken the position that they are more closely related to psychology than is philosophy. And as such, the conclusion was that psychology should not be bundled with any of these. To be redundant, the argument goes as follows: psychology is a better fit with biology and medicine (or culture and society) than it is with philosophy, but psychology shouldn't be bundled with biology and medicine (or culture and society); therefore, nor should it be bundled with philosophy. Gregbard is making a similar point, as I understand him. The real question, then, seems to be why we shouldn't have separate philosophy and psychology categories. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea on sections

I just thought that these sections may expand a lot eventually, so i was just wondering if anyone would object if i moved the sections to their own pages and transcluded them here? Same thing for WP:GA there? Simply south (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA has nothing to do with GA. Yes, I would (strongly) object; it would make promotions very difficult. As it is, I have six or more tabs open to promote, I don't want to have to open dozens of pages each time I promote a batch. Likely ditto for Marskell on demotions and for the bot that adds mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying WP:GA had anything to do with WP:FA (ignoring they are assessment related which isn't quite what i meant here). I was meaning for example moving WP:FA#Art, architecture and archaeology to Wikipedia:Featured article/Art, architecture and archaeology. Somethin similar on the WP:GA page as well. Simply south (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that; no, that would make promotions, demotions, and page maintenance unnecessarily difficult. The bot that updates mainpage won't know which file to open, and we promote and demote in batches; opening one file is enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandy. This is a really, really bad idea for the reasons she has described. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if GA agrees to this, they should run it by Gimmetrow (talk · contribs), because GimmeBot removes GAs once they're promoted FA, and he shouldn't have to figure out which page to edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i withdraw. (And i've fixed the archives above if that is okay with the correct version i was trying to do) Simply south (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tying to help out, Simply south; because there is only a handful of editors (and two bots) that deal with FA promotion/demotion, others might not know the routine editing patterns on the page, or what is needed to keep the process as simple as possible :-) I appreciate the desire to help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay. Simply south (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive navigation

Hey, Ss, if you're still here ... both Raul and I are "on record" as being Not In Favor Of Large Talk Page Templates And Clutter; is it possible to put a small option on that archive nav? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I could try converting it to a template similar to a WikiProject template. I'll see what happens or tinker a bit. It is possible to reduce the margins so it is a smaller box though. I am just not sure on nesting. (And this is separate from above so it is so...) Simply south (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i am quickly here, this is what it looks like.

v t e Featured articles discussion archives:
pre-12/2003 and renaming poll • Origins dispute • up to January 1, 2005 • up to January 1, 2006 • up to May 1, 2006 • up to Aug 7, 2006 • up to January 31, 2007 • up to August 23, 2007 • up to September 19, 2007 • up to April 10, 2008

. Simply south (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that much better :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this discussion. The original page-spanning template was too wide, and this new one seems too cluttered to be legible. What exactly is wrong with the standard archivebox that has been used on this page for so long? — Dulcem (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership likely in Featured Articles

<Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Ownership likely in Featured Articles>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic diet

I think that the "Paleolithic diet" belongs in the "Biology and medicine" section, more than in the "Food and drink" section. Just my opinion. --70.53.141.111 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone disagrees in a few days, we can move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's clearly more related to food (a specific category) than biology (a general category). Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

argh, and I read the (very clear) statement above completely backwards: I thought it had mistakenly ended up in Bio. Yes, I agree with Raul; it's food. I was confused because (above) we discussed whether nutrition belonged with health if we eventually move things around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm assuming that the "Ketogenic diet" will also go in the "food and drink" category when it gets featured... --198.103.167.20 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, diet articles should go in the more specific category (food) than the less specific category (biology/medicine). Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I'm not sure if you got a close look at Ketogenic diet; it is for epilepsy, and must be initiated in hospital under a physician's care. Unlike most "diets", it seems to fall under medical treatment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the use of "will" and "when" rather than "if" :-). The ketogenic diet is a medical therapy, not a lifestyle choice or a diet that anyone (sensibly) promotes as a healthy diet for normal people to adopt. It should go under "medicine" IMO. Although Paleolithic diet is concerned with overall health, the main focus isn't treating illness (medicine). Colin°^Talk 11:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the above discussion on splitting Biology and medicine, and the proposals at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Mockup to split WP:FA Biology and medicine. I prefer the "Biology / Health and medicine" split partly because "Biological sciences and medicine" seems awkward and also because it solves the above problem. "Health and medicine" fits Paleolithic diet nicely. I prefer either of the proposed splits to what we have at the moment. Colin°^Talk 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, did you mean Paleolithic or Ketogenic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it solves the problem with whether the Paleolithic diet is a health topic (healthy people trying to stay that way) or a medical topic (ill people trying to become healthy). I don't have any doubt that the Ketogenic diet is a medical topic. Colin°^Talk 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin; now get busy on the "when" not "if" part. If Raul takes a position on the two proposed splits in my sandbox, we can move forward, but I'm not particularly worried until the category gets a bit larger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Colin. The Paleolithic diet is promoted based on it's hypothetical ability to prevent diet-related diseases and to treat some conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, but the emphasis is more on disease prevention and health promotion than on treatment. I support the "Biology / Health and medicine" split, and I think the "Paleolithic diet" article would fit nicely into the "Health and medicine" section. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with above comments, and stand by my original comments - the paleolithic diet is should clearly go in the more specific subject (food) than health. As far as the ketogenic diet, I appreciate that its purpose is medically oriented, but I still have to say that it more specifically belongs in food than medicine. Raul654 (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by specific. Are you saying that the category "food" is narrower than "health", or that the Paleolithic and Ketogenic diets have more to do with "food" than "health"? --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Biology (again)

(Redacted from Sandy and Marskell's talk pages)

I was roaming around thinking about our FA list (after debating on GA talk) and noticed your sandbox proposing splitting Biology. I think the split is inevitable, as the section continues to grow. But I think it should be Tree of Life, not Flora and Fauna. "Vegetables and animals" is actually archaic, even if people still think of "two kingdoms". Tree of Life is more inclusive.

Just a note, in case I miss you or Raul splitting it. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten any clear indication from Raul on those two proposals, but the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Flora and fauna section. I don't think anything is happening soon, but it would help if you would watchlist those discussions. A lot of people who don't understand page maintenance issues tend to weigh in there, and many suggestions are unhelpful. (Removing may be a lot easier than adding, but I can envision nightmares with every random proposal that appears there in terms of what it takes to add a batch.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given my recent editing habits, I'll probably miss the discussion if it comes up again. So do ping me.

"Flora and fauna", strictly speaking, excludes Fungi, and clearly excludes Archaea and Bacteria. Tree of Life is both appropriately vague (all life) and appropriately specific (all life). Viruses would be one difficult issue (AIDS?), as would bio's of people focused on taxonomy. I would suggest leaving both viruses and bio's in Biology, and having a Tree of Life that only lists existing categories in current alpha taxonomy. (Of course, the semantics involved are impossible for anybody to follow :) Marskell (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh ... your editing habits, and my memory :-) I can no longer guarantee I'll remember that if/when it comes up. Would you mind adding the same points you made on my talk page to the discussion on teh FA talk page, so we'll remember if/when decision time comes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, a brief conversation on something that has come up before. Any comments? Sandy wants to wait until Bio hits 200, but I don't see why we don't just get it over with and split the section. What format? Marskell (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]