Category talk:Argumentation: Difference between revisions
Forgottenman (talk | contribs) organize, refocus |
talk page cleanup |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOC right}} | |||
==Parsing argumentation== | |||
We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see: | We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see: | ||
Revision as of 05:31, 28 January 2011
Parsing argumentation
We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see:
- Articles related to argumentation in itself
- Articles giving arguments for and against positions in a controversy
- Articles on historical and future debates
- An article on a particular country's political system
To me, only the first one really fits within this category, but the second could fit as well, if defined. I like the idea of Argumentation:ABCT, but less so Criticism of fractional reserve banking. And the last two types especially don't seem to belong.
Other thoughts? --Forgottenman (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Hopefully the structure issue is now resolved. So what should go in this category? --Forgottenman (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (CST)
Category hierarchy
- Why are you ruling me by reverts and witless comments (rv; use existing categories rather than nonexistent ones, and if anything fits in Category:Argumentation, it's this), when you have no solution, and when you are clear that "Argumentation (cat)" doesn't mean "Argumentation (ethics concept)"? --Reserved 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Second issue: "Argumentation ethic" is a concept but not an economic concept unless all concepts are economic concepts. --Reserved 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Category:Concepts does not exist. Category:Argumentation is in Category:Articles. There is no inconsistency, and putting articles in categories that do not exist is not helpful.
- Before claiming that others are "ruling you," consider that you might be wrong, and that the opinion of others (like the creator of this category and others who have added to it) merits consideration as well. --Forgottenman (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Do you know who is wrong? Of course, Category:Argumentation is in Category:Articles when it is written as articles. What's the point? When a Category is missing, one should create it. Clear the sense of existing pages before. In the meantime I will use it as wiki, as it is. --Reserved 09:01, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Excellent. This is indeed a wiki, which is why I can revert edits that are unhelpful (like adding articles to nonexistent categories) and you can perform edits that are helpful (like creating new categories for which you perceive a need). Are you now going to fix the structure, so this category is part of Category:Concepts, and put Argumentation ethics back in Category:Argumentation? --Forgottenman (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- I don't fall into quibbling. The ready progress is helpful. You are reverting the progress on the way. And I am not aware what should be wrong about Category:Argumentation, as it is described, aside from the point that the name is unhappily choosen. --Reserved 09:39, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Excellent. This is indeed a wiki, which is why I can revert edits that are unhelpful (like adding articles to nonexistent categories) and you can perform edits that are helpful (like creating new categories for which you perceive a need). Are you now going to fix the structure, so this category is part of Category:Concepts, and put Argumentation ethics back in Category:Argumentation? --Forgottenman (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2011 (CST)
- Do you know who is wrong? Of course, Category:Argumentation is in Category:Articles when it is written as articles. What's the point? When a Category is missing, one should create it. Clear the sense of existing pages before. In the meantime I will use it as wiki, as it is. --Reserved 09:01, 27 January 2011 (CST)