There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Category talk:Jounalists
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
We already have a Journalism category. Do we need two cats for a subject we have very few articles for? weaseLOId~ 08:10, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not sure that we really need a misspelled category at all. Debate anyone?
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:30, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Keep. This is a category for people who work for "jounas" the ancient Sanskrit word for "teh internet". Consequently we need this category. (some guy at work)62.99.99.246 (talk) (block)
- I didn't even notice the spelling error! Anyway, I've emptied it of the one article that was in this cat. It can either be deleted or left a a misspelled empty category. . . . weaseLOId
~ 11:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Typical! That's the sort of high-handed unilateral action that sets of headless chicken mode. We need a due process for correcting errors.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Typical! That's the sort of high-handed unilateral action that sets of headless chicken mode. We need a due process for correcting errors.
- I didn't even notice the spelling error! Anyway, I've emptied it of the one article that was in this cat. It can either be deleted or left a a misspelled empty category. . . . weaseLOId
- I killed it.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:29, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- See what I mean! :)
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- Per Weaseloid's comment above, I think it's time we formulated some sort of policy regarding the use of "people-based" categories (e.g. journalists, atheists, creationists, etc) and the use of ideology-based categories (e.g. journalism, atheism, creationism, etc). As it stands, whenever I categorize an article, I am never sure whether to cat (for example) Richard Dawkins as "atheism" or "atheist", or both.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:57, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- That's a good example, because as far as I'm concerned there doesn't need to be an "atheists" category; they could just go in "atheism". I don't think every person necessarily has to be categorised in person-related categories. My own feeling is that there are a few too many categories, some of which are unnecessary. It would be easier to manage categorisation (& hence easier to find articles) if a few of the overlapping/duplicating categories were cut out. weaseLOId
~ 17:05, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
- As I pointed out elsewhere (category:Atheists) people should go into a sub category of people and a sub category of a related subject if necessary. So the category:journalists should be a member of category:people and also a member of [[:category:journalism] and hence a person needs to be categorised only as a journalist (unless they have other talents).
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 03:00, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
- As I pointed out elsewhere (category:Atheists) people should go into a sub category of people and a sub category of a related subject if necessary. So the category:journalists should be a member of category:people and also a member of [[:category:journalism] and hence a person needs to be categorised only as a journalist (unless they have other talents).
- That's a good example, because as far as I'm concerned there doesn't need to be an "atheists" category; they could just go in "atheism". I don't think every person necessarily has to be categorised in person-related categories. My own feeling is that there are a few too many categories, some of which are unnecessary. It would be easier to manage categorisation (& hence easier to find articles) if a few of the overlapping/duplicating categories were cut out. weaseLOId
- Per Weaseloid's comment above, I think it's time we formulated some sort of policy regarding the use of "people-based" categories (e.g. journalists, atheists, creationists, etc) and the use of ideology-based categories (e.g. journalism, atheism, creationism, etc). As it stands, whenever I categorize an article, I am never sure whether to cat (for example) Richard Dawkins as "atheism" or "atheist", or both.
- See what I mean! :)
- Keep. This is a category for people who work for "jounas" the ancient Sanskrit word for "teh internet". Consequently we need this category. (some guy at work)62.99.99.246 (talk) (block)