CZ Talk:Core Articles/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>Nereo Preto (→Earth Sciences top 33: new section) |
imported>Anthony Argyriou (→Earth Sciences top 33: suggested revision) |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
[[Ciao|Sciao vostro]], --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 13:46, 9 October 2007 (CDT) | [[Ciao|Sciao vostro]], --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 13:46, 9 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
I suggest the following revision, to reflect the general importance to earth sciences of the various topics, and removing a few already-started articles. Dinosaur is made a 10-point article because that's one of the more popular things to look up in an encyclopedia: | |||
{{col-begin}} | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
# [[Earth]] (10)** | |||
# [[Climate]] (10) | |||
# [[Plate tectonics]] (10) | |||
# [[Geology]] (10) | |||
# [[Dinosaur]] (10) | |||
# [[Earthquake]] (5) | |||
# [[Plate (geology)]](5) | |||
# [[Groundwater]] (5) | |||
# [[Ocean]] (5) | |||
# [[Oil (geology)]] (5) | |||
# [[Atmosphere]] (5) | |||
# [[Age of the Earth]] (5) | |||
# [[Lithosphere]](5) | |||
# [[Air]](5) | |||
# [[Mantle (geology)]](5) | |||
# [[Continent]](2) | |||
# [[Crust]](2) | |||
# [[Ice cap]] (2) | |||
# [[Erosion]] (2) | |||
# [[Holocene]] (2) | |||
# [[Hurricane]] (2) | |||
# [[Ice age]] (2) | |||
# [[Hydrology]](2)** | |||
# [[Meteorology]](2) | |||
# [[Pleistocene]](2) | |||
# [[Precambrian]](2) | |||
# [[Sedimentology]](2) | |||
# [[Seismology]](2) | |||
# [[Mountain]](2) | |||
# [[Paleontology]] (2) | |||
# [[Quaternary]] (2) | |||
# [[Volcano]] (2) | |||
# [[Weather]] (2) | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
# [[Alps]] | |||
# [[Aquifer]] | |||
# [[Asbestos]] | |||
# [[Basalt]] | |||
# [[Cainozoic]] | |||
# [[Calcite]] | |||
# [[Cave]] | |||
# [[Climate model]] | |||
# [[Cloud]] | |||
# [[Crystal]] | |||
# [[Current]] | |||
# [[Diamond]] | |||
# [[Fault (geology)]] | |||
# [[Feldspar]] | |||
# [[Fold (geology)]] | |||
# [[Gem]] | |||
# [[Geochemistry]] | |||
# [[Geomagnetic reversal]] | |||
# [[Granite]] | |||
# [[Gulf Stream]] | |||
# [[Landslide]] | |||
# [[Limestone]] | |||
# [[Marble]] | |||
# [[Mesozoic]] | |||
# [[Thermohaline circulation]] | |||
# [[Carbonate platform]] | |||
# [[Coal]] (only a redirect) | |||
# [[Karst]] | |||
# [[Natural gas]] | |||
# [[Flood]] | |||
# [[Ocean circulation]] | |||
# [[Pollution]] (should be listed also under Chemistry and Environmental engineering) | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
# [[Ocean acidification]] (10) | |||
# [[North Atlantic Oscillation]] (5) | |||
# [[El Niño-Southern Oscillation]] (5) | |||
# [[Mine]] | |||
# [[Mineral]] | |||
# [[Nucleus (geology)]] | |||
# [[Olivine]] | |||
# [[Ore]], or [[Ore mining]] | |||
# [[Orogeny]] | |||
# [[Paleoclimatology]] | |||
# [[Paleozoic]] | |||
# [[Pangaea]] | |||
# [[Peridotite]] | |||
# [[Precipitation]] | |||
# [[Quarry]] | |||
# [[Quartz]] | |||
# [[Radiocarbon]] | |||
# [[Rain]] | |||
# [[River]] | |||
# [[Sea level change]] | |||
# [[Soil]] | |||
# [[Stone]] (i.e., [[Rock (geology)|rock]] as a building material) | |||
# [[Thunderstorm]] | |||
# [[Tide]] | |||
# [[Tornado]] | |||
# [[Tunnel]] (also under Civil engineering?) | |||
# [[Water table]] | |||
# [[Wind]]** | |||
# [[Zircon]] | |||
{{col-end}} | |||
[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 14:10, 9 October 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 13:10, 9 October 2007
Dive in!
Please dive in! I've put the initiative before the Editorial Council for approval "by acclamation"--I doubt anyone will have any objection. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- May I suggest that the headings should be chnaged from Column 1 to High Priority, and cols 2 and 3 should be Lower Priority? Otherwise, the meaning of these columns is not clear without reading a lot of text.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:55, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Is THIS the meaning of columns? Well, then, I suppose my posts here should be reorganized a little... :) --Nereo Preto 09:13, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Okay, I totally missed this bit. I have to do this in two stages: a) brainstorming, b) prioritising. Since I'm doing performance arts, film and I haven't even TOUCHED hobbies yet. Oy! Feel free to jump on in here! Aleta Curry 17:19, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- LOL :-) Here is the text:
- Is THIS the meaning of columns? Well, then, I suppose my posts here should be reorganized a little... :) --Nereo Preto 09:13, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- May I suggest that the headings should be chnaged from Column 1 to High Priority, and cols 2 and 3 should be Lower Priority? Otherwise, the meaning of these columns is not clear without reading a lot of text.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:55, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Each workgroup may award 10 points for the five most important articles in the group, 5 points for the ten next most important, and 2 points for the 14 next most important (down to #33, the bottom of the first column). The rest (in the middle and right columns) are worth a point apiece. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:17, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I've done it for Economics, anyway. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:52, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Definitely! --Larry Sanger 11:59, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
biology core articles (discussion)
- Also go to the workgroup page
- Acid-base physiology
- Adaptability
- Adipose tissue biology
- Adenovirus
- Adrenal physiology
- Aging
- Amino acid metabolism and function
- Animism
- Ant
- Antigen (microstub)
- Apocrine gland physiology
- Arterial system
- Oswald T. Avery (DNA as the genetic material)
- Baboon
- Bear
- Bioterrorism
- Bone
- Comte de Buffon
- Butterfly
I'll have to learn the wiki coding, but here find some potential "Core" articles starting with letter "A"--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
Well, bear in mind that on the proposal in question, there are only 200 articles in each of Biology and Health Sciences--and they have to be the 200 "core," most important, articles. I suspect there would be a lot more than 200 biology articles if you were to continue the list at that level of specialization. --Larry Sanger 20:34, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
Agree re "core" concept. Thinking to make a draft list of potential core topics biology, then cull to a 200 core by consensus of Workgroup. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:22, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
Exactly what I hoped you'd do. --Larry Sanger 10:00, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- Anthony, don't forget we already have a list high priority articles that has been whittled down somewhat (CZ:Biology_Workgroup#High_priority_articles). Another source of our most wanted articles is on the Biology/Related Articles subpage. I suggest we put out list together on the workgroup page and gain a a consensus onm our 200 unwritten articles. I'm sure we could all come up very different lists. Chris Day (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- Good suggestion. I'll work on the Workgroup page, CZ:Biology_Workgroup#High_priority_articles, start by alphabetizing current list for ease of determining whether a considered topic exists. How does one show delete without removing item? Something like
xxxxxxx? Show preview answered my question. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:52, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- Good suggestion. I'll work on the Workgroup page, CZ:Biology_Workgroup#High_priority_articles, start by alphabetizing current list for ease of determining whether a considered topic exists. How does one show delete without removing item? Something like
Architecture
Are there perhaps some more abstract (but also more familiar) concepts that would be assigned to the Architecture Workgroup? For example, skyscraper, church, building materials, etc.? --Larry Sanger 11:50, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- of course - All manner of Building types, Museum, Railway station, Airport, House, Apartment, Town Hall, School, Hotel, Office.......Building materials, we have concrete, steel, and glass, which could all probably benefit from some architectural input (although they could be considered part of structural engineering and 'construction' too) - Construction articles Construction, Construction trades, Construction methods, Structural systems, Architectural publications and awards, Stirling prize, Pritzker Prize, Architect's Journal, Learning from Las Vegas, there's then the whole area of law relating to architecture - contracts, land law, tort, planning law; then regulatory articles Building codes, Zoning - professional articles Architectural practice, RIBA, AIA - related disciplines Planning and urban design, Structural engineering, Acoustic design.........It's a vast field........I was trying to list some of the most important architects, buildings, movements and theories through the ages with a concentration on the modern - would you like me to replace some of the more obscure ones with the more 'generic' topics (or can we have 66 per column?) :-) --Russ McGinn 11:58, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- Architectural acoustics, Material science, Environmental control (architecture), Green architecture, Vernacular architecture, Architectural conservation, Brutalist architecture, Art Deco architecture, Art Nouveau architecture, Great Wall of China, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.....--Russ McGinn 12:10, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
Definitely--well, just pick the ones that, in your opinion, are most likely to be searched for. Limit it to 33 per column for now. Put the runners-up on CZ:Architecture Workgroup, how about? --Larry Sanger 12:23, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- Ok, I'll try and thrash something out at the workgroup page (although it's a bit lonely over there). Moving this discussion to talk. 33 per column for the original Polymath subject! We aim to please.......--Russ McGinn 07:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
reordering others' contributions
Is it bad form to move others' contributions from column one to another column? As much as I think Duck, Ant, and Eagle may eventually be worthy topics, I don't believe they qualify as the highest priority core articles in biology. Of course, I'll happily defer if other biology editors disagree... Andrew Su 11:28, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- See the workgroup discussion, I don't consider the things added here as final. Well see how they sit in the big list being developed on the workgroup page. Ant might be worth it due to the massive amount of research on their behaviour etc. I'm struggling to see duck as important. Chris Day (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- I have to agree, I started laughing when I saw Ant and Duck as the leading core articles in Biology :-)) The Eagle is political of course! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:49, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, so it looks like we have a few parallel lists going on here. So what's the plan for unifying/integrating them? Does the fact that the Biology Workgroup already has a "High priority articles" section make the list here moot? Or perhaps I should just add my contributions to the workgroup discussion? Actually, I'd hesitate to spend a lot of effort to unify/prioritize them. Just seems like a lot of empty work, since I think people will generally write about what they want to write about (though of course a long list of ideas is a good starting point)... Andrew Su 12:36, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- I more or less unified the Economics workgroup page with this one, and will try to do so with the Politics page. The guideline, as with most things in life, is to leave previous decisions unchanged unless they are crap :-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:05, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, so it looks like we have a few parallel lists going on here. So what's the plan for unifying/integrating them? Does the fact that the Biology Workgroup already has a "High priority articles" section make the list here moot? Or perhaps I should just add my contributions to the workgroup discussion? Actually, I'd hesitate to spend a lot of effort to unify/prioritize them. Just seems like a lot of empty work, since I think people will generally write about what they want to write about (though of course a long list of ideas is a good starting point)... Andrew Su 12:36, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- I have to agree, I started laughing when I saw Ant and Duck as the leading core articles in Biology :-)) The Eagle is political of course! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:49, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Do the columns have meaning here?
Like, is column one for items more important than those in column 3, or is this just a way of organizing the page?
If column 1 is more important, then who's the genius who decided that Frank Zappa rates higher than the Beatles??? Aleta Curry 16:02, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- See my suggestion at the top of the page:-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:06, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Stuff from the Great Workgroup Cleanup Crew
Somewhere--maybe over at workgroups--there is a page where people made suggestions about other needed workgroups, improvements, reorganisation etc. I'll try to find it; should be incoporated here.... Aleta Curry 16:04, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- It's at CZ:New Workgroup Requests and CZ Talk:New Workgroup Requests. Anton Sweeney 04:55, 30 September 2007 (CDT)
Crossover
Okay, we knew this was coming, folks. I've got all sorts of problems with crossover topics.
- Operetta - Theatre or music? I chose 'theatre', but...? Aleta Curry 17:08, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Film - Visual arts, or media? Right now the Visual Arts list looks confused--Dali to Chaplin.
Most of my problems are going to come with respect to Hobbies. Sewing is a trade, and a hobby. Philately is a profession, stamp collecting is a hobby, but so is philately. Some philatelists are also stamp collectors. Associated football is what, the most popular hobby on God's good earth, but clearly a sport and also a profession, as is tennis, etc. etc.
I'm sure it'll get worse as I go along.
Help!!!
Aleta Curry 17:51, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Pick the strongest association. :-) Stamp collecting is obviously of most interest to most people as a hobby. Ditto sewing.
- No, see, you can't say that about sewing. You try saying that to the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, or all those poor unfortunates in sweat shops. Aleta Curry 20:20, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Don't bother too much about this. We may jettison the "hobby" category altogether, in favor of an array of more specialized groups. Football is of course first and foremost a sport. --Larry Sanger 17:55, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Simply, we need a Trades Workgroup. Try to otherwise categorize Landscaping. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:56, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Many article will be in more than one workgroup. If one workgroup is already full then stick it in the other. If both have room just pick the strongest link. If about equal, toss a coin. :) Chris Day (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Associated football is in Business, surely?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:04, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Chokes on her toast. Aleta Curry 18:14, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- Associated football is in Business, surely?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:04, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
- We're calling it Football (soccer) but Association football is the official name. And soccer is indeed a business - in exactly the same way as basketball, American football and baseball. Just more successful ;-) Anton Sweeney 08:59, 30 September 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm on record against film being part of visual art. It's just too huge and popular; it should be its own workgroup or we risk the rest of visual art being overwhelmed. (When I first came to this page, the only subjects listed under visual art were from film.) In any case, there's no way people/things such as Mel Blanc, Mary Pickford, and Hanna-Barbera are in the top 99 visual arts subjects OF ALL TIME! (IMHO of course.) Not to mention having both Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer AND Sam Goldwyn. We're talking thousands of years of art, folks. Eric Winesett 01:43, 28 September 2007 (CDT)
- As stated above, I agree with you, Eric, but I gotta work with wot I got! Aleta Curry 18:15, 29 September 2007 (CDT)
Animal breeds
Are individual breeds of dogs and cats really core articles for the Hobbies group?! Dog- and cat-breeding, certainly, but the breeds themselves, when there are so many hobbies? Anton Sweeney 03:08, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
- I wouldn't worry. I would think that, like in the other workgroups specialised subjects, in this case "core" articles for animal fancy, will get bumped in favour of articles that are core to the broader topic of hobbies. Aleta Curry 16:18, 3 October 2007 (CDT)
Earth
Earth: does it go under Earth Sciences or under Astronomy? I would say, both, and there's not a strongest association. Ah, it might be Geography, also. Please someone claim the article! I suggest the first to claim it takes it! (Earth Sciences: I call myself out of this game, but if anyone else in my workgroup could show up...) --Nereo Preto 08:15, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
Countries
There's a suggestion on the article page that country profiles should go under the Geograqphy heading here. And while logically yes, that makes sense - there are a lot of them! They'd quickly swamp the Geography section. I'd suggest therefore that country profiles be treated as a special case and be a group in its own right, or included as a subsection of 'Miscellaneous'? Anton Sweeney 04:21, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
- the Geography section is most appropriate. The UN has about 200 possible countries, and it will be a long while at present rates before we hit 100. Geography textbooks have managed to handle the burden for many decades, of course. Richard Jensen 05:57, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
Making a pledge
I know this is going out on a limb here, but is there anyone interested in making a pledge to write 2-5 articles on any of the core topics during a weeks period? It would be great if collectively we could manage say, 50 level 2 or 3 articles a week... not necessarily approved articles, but more than stubs.
Also, contributing to a level 2 or 3 article to make it a vastly improved article would be great as well.
The only caveat is, you can't copy any content from WP.
If you are interested in doing so, just add your name to the list below with a number next to your name.
I pledge to create between 2-5 CZ:CORE articles per week
- --Robert W King (2)
Earth Sciences top 33
I have just posted a proposal for the most important 33 missing articles in Earth Sciences, leaving a note on top that the points are not definitive. Everyone interested: check out and comment! If, by the end of this week, there are no objections, I'll drop the note and we'll assume the first column of the list is... crystallized!
We still need 4 articles to 100: any ideas?
Sciao vostro, --Nereo Preto 13:46, 9 October 2007 (CDT)
I suggest the following revision, to reflect the general importance to earth sciences of the various topics, and removing a few already-started articles. Dinosaur is made a 10-point article because that's one of the more popular things to look up in an encyclopedia:
Anthony Argyriou 14:10, 9 October 2007 (CDT)