Category talk:Argumentation: Difference between revisions
Forgottenman (talk | contribs) re |
Forgottenman (talk | contribs) m clarify |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
: 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)"? --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST) | : 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)"? --[[User:Reserved|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. --[[User:Reserved|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. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST) | ||
::[[:Category:Concepts]] does not exist. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]]. There is no inconsistency, and categories that do not exist | ::[[: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. --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST) | ::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. --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 27 January 2011
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)
- 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)