Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Modified the template

Just letting people know, I was WP:BOLD and greatly expanded our project template, {{WikiProject Pseudoscience}}. Articles can now be assessed and sorted by quality, and can be marked as requiring immediate attention. I left the importance parameter out intentionally, as I thought on this project it would be difficult to non-controversially sort pseudoscientific articles by importance. Anywho, please do your part to update articles with these new parameters as needed, or discuss/revert the changes if you disagree with them. Thanks, everyone! elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If formal guidelines get adopted, I can see that reducing contention a little bit, but for that to happen you'll need a very clear community endorsement of the guidelines (otherwise they'll get ignored). A well-publicized RFC asking for input for further changes once you've gotten a draft in-hand is a very good idea (before even starting the "get this adopted as a guideline" process). I haven't seen any so far in the "centralized discussion" list, though it's possible I'd just missed them (haven't been following it too closely). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Simon Turnbull

This article would probably benefit from some attention from member of this project. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC

Please comment at Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)}

Possible list of "Top" importance articles for this project

One of the best ways of determining what is and is not important to a topic is, at least to my eyes, finding out what is included in that topic elsewhere. At User:John Carter/Pseudoscience articles, I have gathered together all the article titles from the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience ed. William F. Williams. I do acknowledge that the specific topics of those articles is not necessarily identical to the topics of our articles, but I would think that there would be some basis for considering the articles here which contain the material of the articles in that book would qualify as being of "Top" importance to this project, based on their inclusion there, although, of course, I am not necessarily saying that the "Top" importance rating should necessarily be limited to those articles. Would any of the members here have an opinion regarding perhaps engaging in such tagging? John Carter (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of strife that's occurred over adding "Category:Pseudoscience" or the pseudoscience template to articles, it might be best to maintain a list in project-space rather than templating talk pages. While this is pickier to maintain, there won't be constant edit wars over it.

That said, I'm mostly-retired from this wikiproject, so do as you think best. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Astrology & Horoscope articles

I I am trying to keep collaboration and factual information with the Western astrology and Chinese zodiac signs. What I am trying to think is making two new articles to redirect where all the signs and information are in one article. An article for the list and facts of Western astrology and one for the Chinese zodiac, and other horoscopes. There are repeats of skeptical deletions from among IP and confirmed users who believe it is useless, or in joke when from earlier users it was stated as reliable as facts. In truth I am just stating the facts, the article doesn't mean it is true, it's only stating mythological details, such as a person born in the year of Rat, it is only stating folkore. I would really like to make two articles where I can redirect each sign and paste in to the articles for Western astrology and Chinese zodiac. Check also on WP:RSN.--GoShow (...............) 00:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking for, here. Content changes - like splitting or merging articles, or large-scale moving of content from one place to another - is something that has to be discussed on the article talk pages, and that should only be done with consensus. Any single user, administrator or not, does not have the authority to do that unilaterally. Suggest your idea (as clearly as possible) on one of those article talk pages, and put a short note on each of the other talk pages pointing to the proposal discussion thread on the first page. Then be prepared for a lot of discussion about the subject (per WP:CONS). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, sorry, I copied and pasted and forgot to delete some edits, my purpose was a redirect theory thank you--GoShow (...............) 01:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience 'warning' headers

I've raised an issue for discussion at FTN regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Headers_for_flagging_well-known_pseudoscience_topics:

• Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Pseudoscience_.27warning.27_templates

I'd welcome your feedback about if/when/why these are appropriate in articles. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The removal may have been justified, especially since some of these seem to have gone through xfd years ago, but it was done in the most ham-fisted way possible. I've left a longer response at FTN. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research

As I am withdrawing from WP, somebody else should take over this discussion. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest notifying WP:FTN as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done so, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)