Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:09, 15 December 2006

User talk:HighInBC/Header

UB article

Thanks for comments in the UB article discussions and my user page. I did have a question for you, actually, since you're someone who both has an understanding about the book and is well-versed and very active in the larger wikipedia world. As I said on the article discussion page, I have an inclination toward making the "Cosmology" and "History and future of the world" sections articles in their own right. I think it's justified for reasons of organization of the material and making the main article more manageable to digest for the average reader. Do you think expansion into a series of articles is warranted at this time and in line with "notability" considerations?

The few ancillary TUB-related articles like Thought Adjuster and The Fifth Epochal Revelation don't seem to gather much editor attention and TA had to survive an AfD, while FER is tagged as being not so great an article right now. (Personally, I don't intend to improve FER though I've edited it in the past, as I don't think it's really justified as a topic. The phrase to me should really just be a redirect to the main TUB page, like how "The Urantia Papers" is, since FER is essentially only a slang phrase and not so much a topic. An alternate idea I had was to rename the article to be "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" and have it be a more generalized article on the concept of "revelation" per the book, eg. go into "autorevelation" vs "epochal", but haven't mustered the time and interest quite.)

So, anyhow, I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you think expansion to additional articles is justifiable for the overall TUB topic. Thanks. Wazronk 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with The Urantia Book would know that a wealth of content exists. What is needed is third party reliable sources. I would say that any article that can be more than just a stub with verifiable material is justified. The existing article is large enough to justify branching articles. Eventually the article can become a summery style article where each section refers to it's own article. See Canada for an example.

The second challenge is not one of acceptance, but one of practicality. It may be hard to find editors for branching subjects. However, critics are bound to show up, and they are useful in articles that get no other attention if only to keep the few active editors honest.

When a new article is created that is a split of an existing article, there is often a movement to merge the information into the original article. To avoid this it is best to start a new article with a reasonable amount of well sourced information. Not just a stub, you can start in your userspace by gathering sources for the specific subject like this: User:HighInBC/Hempology 101 - notes. Once it is at the point where it is a respectable article the Move command can be used to bring it into the article space. This is a big task, and I will help. HighInBC 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your assistance, I appreciate it. I'll likely piece together a "Cosmology" article and follow your advice about making use of my userspace to draft it. When I wrote the glossary I did it offline on my own since there weren't as many editors around but it makes sense to do drafts online if others can then assist. I'll let you know when I have something reasonable fleshed out. All the best. Wazronk 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you have a start page, and begin with sources, I can read those and help bring out content. HighInBC 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating the article online not only allows for collaberation, but provides a very valuable edit history for the future. HighInBC 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Anderson

Hi Ryan. You closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) as "no consensus". Could you please explain why you did this? By the way, I'm also an admin so I know the policies, I'm just interested in how you applied them in this case. Thanks in advance for your explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the arguments on both side seemed compatable with policy. That seeking to delete were claiming a lack of notability, while that claiming to keep were claiming notability. The major difference of opinion was if the sources in the article qualified the subject as notable.

This seemed very close to delete to me, but there was not a clear majority in my eye. Straight number counting gives about 61% for delete. I attempted to going through an remove votes that were not based in reason and policy, but the percent remained the same.

This was one of the first batch of AfD's I closed, and while I am more confident with the decision No consensus than I would be with Delete(the choice I was leaning too), I am certainly open to an constructive critisisms on the closing. I am always looking for friendly advice. HighInBC 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. I also thought it was close, but I thought it should have been a delete, not no consensus. Perhaps we counted differently, but once you eliminate the keep votes based on ideas of "debunking", etc., I thought there was a clear majority (although not overwhelming) for delete. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I almost decided delete. I am sure my judgement will improve as my experience grows. HighInBC 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion is along Chan-Ho's lines: I'd probably have closed it as a delete, but it is a close call, and I can understand that you went the other way. If I may make one suggestion to you, HighInBC, add a short explanation of how you came to your decision if an AfD is close. But I like it that you don't shrink from the tough calls. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 162.40.20.99

That IP is an open proxy, accessable through irage.us. Also, thanks for reverting that vandalism. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. HighInBC 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug) worthy of 2nd FAC?

I feel that Cannabis (drug) has improved, and is worthy of a second go for FAC. I'm quite inexperienced, so I thought I'd ask you if you felt the same way. So, what are your thoughts? --Jmax- 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

please see User talk:Srkris

please see User talk:Srkris

bye Pluto.2006 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)