| Revision as of 14:47, 18 October 2007 editDiego (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,594 edits →Your recent edits to Crisis Pregnancy Center: re: RE:← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:58, 18 October 2007 edit undoAli'i (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,404 edits →Accurate, but faulty assumption: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| ::Point taken. You have changed my mind. Although I don't think you'll have much luck with User:Photouploaded (stubborn). Thanks. — <font face="Verdana">]</font> <sup>'']''</sup> 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ::Point taken. You have changed my mind. Although I don't think you'll have much luck with User:Photouploaded (stubborn). Thanks. — <font face="Verdana">]</font> <sup>'']''</sup> 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Accurate, but faulty assumption == | |||
| You seem to imply in that the closing of the community sanction noticeboard somehow spurred Ferrylodge to request arbitration. However, Ferrylodge had emailed me back on September 26 requesting any advice on how to proceed (acknowledging arbitration was a possibility), and acknowledged on October 3rd that he would probably be seeking arbitration "next week". The board wasn't even proposed to be deleted until the 6th, and wasn't tagged historical until the 11th. To assume the arbitration was based on the sanction board being shut down is faulty. If you feel up to it, it would be nice to rescind that part of your evidence. However, I won't hold it against you if you do not. Gracias and mahalo. --] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:58, 18 October 2007
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| Talk page archives
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Crisis Pregnancy Center
I noticed that you recently replaced "category:abortion debate" with "category:pro-life movement", citing that this was a duplicate categorization (to have both). "Pro-life" definitely falls within "Abortion debate" hierarchically, but I don't think having both categories is redundant. People often surf articles based on category and the more applicable categories assigned to an article, the easier it is to find. While CPCs are clearly a tool of the Pro-life movement, they have become part of the larger debate and I think that the broader "abortion debate" category is appropriate.
Feel free to move this comment to the CPC talk page. I posted it here because I'm not sure if you are watching that page (Talk:Crisis Pregnancy Center is a bit stale and I sometimes receive no response to comments I have left there). Thanks. — DIEGO 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I find linear categorization structures to be the most navigable. When a system is more open form, allowing for extensive cross-categorization, I find it can become circuitous, with categories and subcategories looping back on each other rather confusingly.
- Cross-listing an article in two subcategories of the same parent category can also give a false impression of the overall number of articles that there are on a particular subject. If the categorization structure is "Category:Abortion -> Category:Abortion debate -> Category:Pro-life movement + Category:Pro-choice movement" then placing the article Crisis pregnancy center in both Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement gives the impression that there are more Abortion debate-related articles than there actually exist. This is why I try to only list an article in two subcategories of Category:Abortion if two sufficiently different categories apply to the same topic (such as I'm Not Sorry.net in both Category:Abortion in media and Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States).
- I don't feel that there is sufficient difference between Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement to warrant listing Crisis pregnancy center in both. Yes, crisis pregnancy centres are debated on all sides, but, then, so is the Genocide Awareness Project. Both CPCs and the GAP are exclusively aspects of the pro-life movement. It's not like the Societal attitudes towards abortion, Libertarian perspectives on abortion, or Ethical aspects of abortion, which are clearly more generalized in their coverage . -Severa (!!!) 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. You have changed my mind. Although I don't think you'll have much luck with User:Photouploaded (stubborn). Thanks. — DIEGO 14:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Accurate, but faulty assumption
You seem to imply in this edit that the closing of the community sanction noticeboard somehow spurred Ferrylodge to request arbitration. However, Ferrylodge had emailed me back on September 26 requesting any advice on how to proceed (acknowledging arbitration was a possibility), and acknowledged on October 3rd that he would probably be seeking arbitration "next week". The board wasn't even proposed to be deleted until the 6th, and wasn't tagged historical until the 11th. To assume the arbitration was based on the sanction board being shut down is faulty. If you feel up to it, it would be nice to rescind that part of your evidence. However, I won't hold it against you if you do not. Gracias and mahalo. --Ali'i 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)