| Revision as of 03:33, 5 February 2006 editJimmyT (talk | contribs)516 edits →Talk:Engram (Neuropsychology)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:58, 5 February 2006 edit undoAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits moved discussion from my user talk page and repliedNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ::Thank you, yes it does. --] 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | ::Thank you, yes it does. --] 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::I might add, looking at the history of the engram article, at no time did it present the commonly known definition of the word. The word has been used for more than 50 years, its in probably any dictionary. The article was a special interest article and did not and was not intended to appeal to the broad public. By including the commonly understood use of the word (as Jimmy has done) it creates the appropriate demarkation point, allows Misplaced Pages to appropriately fork and present specialized pages with the reader's understanding of how a fork is appropriate. Well done, Jimmy. ] 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You contend "re-ordering and using Wiktionarypar template, per WP:MOS for disambig pages" as a justification for your adjustment to the disambiguation article. Can you please clarify which portion of MOS supports your view on not having the entries in alphabetical order? Thank you. --] 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly; it's ]. The first point is covered under "]", which states "Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, ]. To do this, use one of the "Wiktionary parameter templates" on the first line." The second point is covered under "]", which states "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." The idea of other orderings is discussed as follows: "For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common. Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top." "Engram" is not a place or person, and the Dianetics and NLP usages of the term are not as common as its usage in the mainstream field of neuropsychology. There would have to be a good reason to go against the guidelines in this case, and the only argument that ''has'' been advanced for ever changing it to alphabetical order is shown in Terryeo's edit summaries: "arranged into the ever popular, much used by Potomec {{sic}}, alaphabetical {{sic}} order", "rearranged to comply with Pomec's {{sic}} ever popular, "alaphabetical {{sic}} arrangement"", "Resequenced to comply with Povmec's alaphabetic {{sic}} sorting" and finally, the puzzlingly nonsensical edit summary "rm redirect" which made sense as ''my'' edit summary when I fixed the redirect of ] to ] that had been left over from a page move, but makes no sense in the context of Terryeo putting the entries in an unneeded, and as we've seen, counter to well-established style guidelines, alphabetical order. "Povmec put items in alphabetical order on a non-disambiguation page so I'm going to do it on ''this'', a disambiguation page" is not a good enough reason to go against the established practice. -- ] 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:58, 5 February 2006
Talk:Engram (Neuropsychology)
To fostor NPOV, this discussion space should not have been moved or redirected under neuropsychology. Transporting discussions of engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) is an act which, in my opinion, violates NPOV and consigns discussion under the light of neuropsychology and inherently proscribes discussion of the Dianetics Engram. According to Misplaced Pages's articles, Hubbard's Dianetics explores the engram with almost entirely different bounds. --JimmyT 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you might not be aware of how the situation came to be. Up until a short time ago, there was only one "Engram" article, called just Engram. Most of the article was of course about the mainstream concept of the engram, but as discussion of the much different Dianetics concept attached to the same term got to be a larger part of that article, an editor had the idea to have separate articles for the mainstream concept and for the Dianetics concept, and have Engram be a disambiguation page that pointed to both of the other two. To accomplish this, the existing engram article (which was, again, mostly devoted to the mainstream usage) was moved to Engram (neuropsychology), and its talk page was moved to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology). Now, when you move a page, the old title becomes a redirect to the new location; this happened for both Engram and Talk:Engram. Engram of course was turned from the redirect created by the page move into a disambiguation page. However, since disambiguation pages usually don't need talk pages, Talk:Engram wasn't changed. Hope this clarifies things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, yes it does. --JimmyT 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I might add, looking at the history of the engram article, at no time did it present the commonly known definition of the word. The word has been used for more than 50 years, its in probably any dictionary. The article was a special interest article and did not and was not intended to appeal to the broad public. By including the commonly understood use of the word (as Jimmy has done) it creates the appropriate demarkation point, allows Misplaced Pages to appropriately fork and present specialized pages with the reader's understanding of how a fork is appropriate. Well done, Jimmy. Terryeo 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Engram
You contend "re-ordering and using Wiktionarypar template, per WP:MOS for disambig pages" as a justification for your adjustment to the disambiguation article. Can you please clarify which portion of MOS supports your view on not having the entries in alphabetical order? Thank you. --JimmyT 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly; it's Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The first point is covered under "Linking to Wiktionary", which states "Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary. To do this, use one of the "Wiktionary parameter templates" on the first line." The second point is covered under "Order of entries", which states "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." The idea of other orderings is discussed as follows: "For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common. Always place the most-common meaning(s) at the top." "Engram" is not a place or person, and the Dianetics and NLP usages of the term are not as common as its usage in the mainstream field of neuropsychology. There would have to be a good reason to go against the guidelines in this case, and the only argument that has been advanced for ever changing it to alphabetical order is shown in Terryeo's edit summaries: "arranged into the ever popular, much used by Potomec , alaphabetical order", "rearranged to comply with Pomec's ever popular, "alaphabetical arrangement"", "Resequenced to comply with Povmec's alaphabetic sorting" and finally, the puzzlingly nonsensical edit summary "rm redirect" which made sense as my edit summary when I fixed the redirect of Talk:Engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) that had been left over from a page move, but makes no sense in the context of Terryeo putting the entries in an unneeded, and as we've seen, counter to well-established style guidelines, alphabetical order. "Povmec put items in alphabetical order on a non-disambiguation page so I'm going to do it on this, a disambiguation page" is not a good enough reason to go against the established practice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)