This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dzonatas (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 9 February 2006 (→Poll: refactored statement that judges me... dispute the facts.. not the people). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:46, 9 February 2006 by Dzonatas (talk | contribs) (→Poll: refactored statement that judges me... dispute the facts.. not the people)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Related may be to broad
It seems to be expressed that those on the project don't want to handle every related article. Perhaps, a few words can be updated to reflect such notion: "organize information in articles related to computer science". Otherwise, the tag might be put on all related articles. It just might avoid further debate to update it a bit. Any suggestions on the words? — Dzonatas 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Concerning -> within_within-2006-02-09T19:18:00.000Z">
This is fine:
- "This article is related to WikiProject Computer science,"
However, this is illogical:
- "an attempt to better organize articles concerning all aspects of computer science."
How can an article be related to computer science while it also concerns itself with all aspects of computer science. That would make the article tagged completely and specifically about computer science. I doubt that is the intention. Certainely, those articles are not "concerning all aspects of computer science." The Haskell language, for example, is not concerned with all aspects of computer science. The article itself is "within" "all aspects of computer science." There are other articles that are just about a part of CS and not all aspects of CS. — Dzonatas 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)_within"> _within">
- Haskell is, indeed, not all aspects of computer science. It is one of the aspects of computer science, which is exactly what the template says. I don't see the problem here? —Ruud 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Concerning" is a gerund - "within" is prepositional. — Dzonatas 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is WikiProject Computer science that is "concerned with all aspects of computer science". The comma should make this distinction clear. However, since this is apparently not clear enough, I have modified the wording (again) in an effort to clarify things. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Now we are back to two phrases attached to a clause.
- Clause: "This article is related to WikiProject Computer science,"
- Phrase: "which is an attempt to better organize articles"
- Phrase: "concerning all aspects of computer science."
The gerund, "concerning," modifies "articles." Surely, that is not what is intended when these phrases are put together. (Hint: make less use of gerunds.) — Dzonatas 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)_within"> _within">
- Concerning your most recent edit:
- This article is related to WikiProject Computer science, which is a project concerned about all aspects of computer science and attempts to better organize these articles.
- Organize which articles? Furthermore, I don't think the WPCS is "concerned about" all CS articles. I can certainly think of a few that I'm "concerned about", but not all of them. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to start a revert war over a single sentence again, but that change totally changed the semantics of the sentence. Please, Dzonatas, propose your senetences on the talk page so we can discus/vote on them first. —Ruud 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Computer Science is an attempt to better organize (the set of all) articles concerning (any) aspects of Computer Science. In the unattainable limit, that set of articles will (collectively) cover all aspects of computer science. In the meantime, WPCS works to better organize the subset that exists. I still don't know how I should vote in the poll. Cjoev 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)_within"> _within">
Now we have, "which is an attempt to organize all articles that concern any aspect of computer science". How is this idealy different from, "an attempt to better organize articles within all aspects of computer science"? — Dzonatas 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)_within"> _within">
- Well, the first is grammatically correct, while the latter isn't. —Ruud 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Prove it. — Dzonatas 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since both phrases apparently mean the same thing to you, why don't we just agree to use the version that everyone else seems to be happy with? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Let Koot prove it. — Dzonatas 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Poll
The template should say "... within all aspects ..."
The template should say "... concerning all aspects ..."
- —Ruud 19:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
--Allan McInnes (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- compromise proposal below --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- If my new option is considered too weak. --Mgreenbe 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The template should say "... concerning aspects ..."
Natural language supports implicit quantification.--Mgreenbe 20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)- Uhh.. but wouldn't it imply "some" in this case? —Ruud 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, it's too ambiguous. Natural language doesn't support implicit quantification. :) --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uhh.. but wouldn't it imply "some" in this case? —Ruud 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
. I have rewritten his most recent edit to this (I hope) compromise form.
- This article is related to WikiProject Computer science, which is an attempt to organize all articles that concern any aspect of computer science.
Is this acceptable to everyone? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're too fast for me; that's almost exactly what I wrote above. The only problem with it is that it's a bit territorial. What if an article is concerned simultaneously with some aspect of CS and some aspect of something else? Cjoev 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Great minds... :-) Anyway, about the territoriality issue: we hammered on that a bit over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Computer science. That's why the template says that the article in question is "related to" WPCS, instead of being "part of" WPCS. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why not copy Template:Chemistry, without the plural "projects" at the end? "Supported" and "central approach" are particularly appealing. I find its template remarkably gentle; moreover, their form is supported by WP:TS. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support —Ruud 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is related to WPCS, which is an attempt to create an organized collection of articles concerned with all aspects of computer science. -- Cjoev 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Since we 're having this debate: I would like to insert the word "better" immediately preceding the word "organize". Normally I would just make the edit, but that doesn't seem appropriate given the circumstances. Are there any objections to the insertion of the word "better" in the location I'm proposing? --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- No objections. —Ruud 20:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do it. --Mgreenbe 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed passive voice:
- WikiProject Computer science attempts to organize all articles that are related to any aspect of computer science, and a wikipedian chose to include this article in the effort. — Dzonatas 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
About the Poll section
Wow... You do track changes. I didn't even get to type the above quick enough. I perfectly understand where Theodore7 comes from about edit clashes, as this one reports I had to merge my edit because you posted a poll before I could even save my notes for the change. — Dzonatas 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have posted your speech first? —Ruud 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)