Talk:Aviation Week and Space Technology: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Finn
No edit summary
imported>Aleta Curry
(It would help if you asked without belligerence.)
Line 18: Line 18:


::I thought this was just a matter of one person adding what may be unencyclopedic content, but it is true that the CZ policy of inclusion is ill-defined. To save other Citizens from adding content that will almost certainly be deleted at some point, it seems that this is an issue that should be best discussed in a wider forum. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 03:05, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
::I thought this was just a matter of one person adding what may be unencyclopedic content, but it is true that the CZ policy of inclusion is ill-defined. To save other Citizens from adding content that will almost certainly be deleted at some point, it seems that this is an issue that should be best discussed in a wider forum. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 03:05, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
:::David, it's extremely difficult to carry out any conversations with you when you insist on being antagonistic at every turn.
:::It's also extremely difficult to know where to begin to answer when you start an argument with an incorrect premise or two or five.
:::''Even before you were contributing to CZ they were discussing the purpose of the subpages, and all they examples the gave were "List of important stuff" and "List of important people".''
:::Incorrect. What is your understanding of subpages, when do you believe the discussion started, and what, specifically, makes you think that that was all that was discussed?
:::Certainly, information goes out of date, which is one reason why the dynamic nature of a wiki is so useful. Yes, content questions, particularly as they relate to scope, should be discussed.
:::[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 06:04, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Revision as of 06:04, 10 May 2011

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Aviation and defense industry publication owned by The McGraw-Hill company. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Journalism, Business and Engineering [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Why do we have a list of all the people working at this publication? I checked and none of them seem to have even a Wikipedia article, so individually why are they important? Do other articles on CZ have lists like this? David Finn 17:33, 9 May 2011 (CDT)

There were several very interesting and lively discussions that preceded your entry into the project and spoke to some of the issues you raise. One of the great advantages of the cluster system is that we can include pertinent but supplementary information in the cluster. I have moved the list of key staffers to the catalogue page. CZ Catalogs are designed to contained annotated lists, and Mary has begun these in a respectable manner.
Just to remind you, and other people new to CZ: notability, in the sense that it is used at Wikipedia, is not a criterion at CZ. Whether or not a person, place or entity has a Wikipedia article has no bearing on whether or not they merit a CZ article. Conversely, just because something has a WP article doesn't mean we need one at CZ. 'Gurg' was one of my favourite examples, as were the articles on minor soap opera characters. I could never figure out how those were notable.
Of course this led to other issues, like, what *would* be the criteria for deciding which Little Red Schoolhouses merited CZ clusters? Would it be reasonable to end up with an article on every single human being on the planet? These were left open; so far, so good.
Since we have been lucky enough to have intelligent writers exercising intelligent judgement, it hasn't yet been a problem. There's nothing which compels me to insist that we have to decide anytime soon, or argue in extremes just in case every inhabitant on the planet suddenly decides that CZ would be improved by an article about his grandmother.
Aleta Curry 00:36, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
Even before you were contributing to CZ they were discussing the purpose of the subpages, and all they examples the gave were "List of important stuff" and "List of important people". The catalogs page you used is for information you might find in an almanac, but what we have now is "List of current staff".
You say that questions about content were left open, but questions about content are answered regularly by Editors and Authors, often acting together, who move, rename or remove content. They have generally leaned towards what might be considered encyclopedic content, which bring me back to my original question - is this content encyclopedic?
Another question is, do you intend to maintain the "Catalog of current staff" so that it does not become the "Catalog of some current staff, some old ones, and the rest dead"? If content becomes out of date it is then someones responsibility to fix it, or more likely remove it.
I thought this was just a matter of one person adding what may be unencyclopedic content, but it is true that the CZ policy of inclusion is ill-defined. To save other Citizens from adding content that will almost certainly be deleted at some point, it seems that this is an issue that should be best discussed in a wider forum. David Finn 03:05, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
David, it's extremely difficult to carry out any conversations with you when you insist on being antagonistic at every turn.
It's also extremely difficult to know where to begin to answer when you start an argument with an incorrect premise or two or five.
Even before you were contributing to CZ they were discussing the purpose of the subpages, and all they examples the gave were "List of important stuff" and "List of important people".
Incorrect. What is your understanding of subpages, when do you believe the discussion started, and what, specifically, makes you think that that was all that was discussed?
Certainly, information goes out of date, which is one reason why the dynamic nature of a wiki is so useful. Yes, content questions, particularly as they relate to scope, should be discussed.
Aleta Curry 06:04, 10 May 2011 (CDT)