Talk:Nibiru

Pop culture bunk

Created; hot subject "traffic driver" related to 2012.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Workgroups

I dunno nuttin' about this nutty 2012 business, but I *do* know this: an article about an imaginary planet doesn't belong in the Astronomy Workgroup, so I have removed that category from the metadata. Hayford Peirce 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I have NO idea how to do these categories, sorry if I get the wrong ones. I had been looking for a "Pop culture" category but didn't find one.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of Workgroups that *should* be there but aren't. Maybe the new people who run CZ will someday fix it. Hayford Peirce 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK if we can bring in more quality authors, maybe this problem will get addressed?--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I s'ppose, but who knows? Hayford Peirce 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd see this in Literature if that's where it originated, possibly Visual Arts if it is a common theme in movies. I think that Media workgroup is a stretch, I would have thought that would be reserved for topics about the media, not about topics they cover.

You can get a finer resolution bu using subgroups. In this case a 'Pop Culture' subgroup is probably appropriate, or a 'Science Fiction' subgroup. I can see a need for both of these in the long term. In the same way the Biology workgroup already has a botany, a biochemistry and a genetics subgroup. Subgroups are not really evolving at present, as there are not enough authors, but their role should be obvious fairly obvious as a both second tier categories, as well as having an interdisciplinary role. See CZ:Subgroups for more on the idea. Chris Day 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would be cool to have an "All other" subgroup too, for stuff that slips between the cracks.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something in mind with regard to slipping between the cracks? I thought the main problem with workgroups is they are too broad. Chris Day 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but it seems like a lot of the traffic driver articles I work on sometimes don't fit neatly into a category. Like Script kiddie Search engine optimization SERP Naruto DVD Quiz show Skive Elin Nordegren HDMI Cat adoption Romantic love Scrubs (TV show). Bromance 2012 Nibiru. I fit them as best I can; not sure what "subgroups" are.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Neuroimaging, scientific method, peer review would be some of the crack-slipping candidates. I would prefer, however, to call that workgroup or subgroup something like "Cross-disciplinary" or "General". --Daniel Mietchen 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. If ok to use "Cross-disciplinary" or "General" let me know.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

i do agree with Daniel that scientific method and peer review represent cross over ones where there are legitimately too many workgroups to choose from, but in general I think these are relatively rare. The key in these cases is we need to fix on the areas with the most impact. And even many of the examples above seem not to cross over into more than three 'primary' workgroups. IMO, using a cross over category should be a last resort, such a category could grow out of hand quickly and end up being a graveyard. Chris Day 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If we have a "Theater" Workgroup, then why isn't there a "Film" or "Movie" workgroup? Why should Dr. No (film), Cary Grant, Waldo Peirce, and Pablo Picasso all fall into a Workgroup called Visual Arts? Just because we use our eyes to *look* at these things? Then I guess we should put Howard's latest offering, Pornography, in there also. It makes no sense. Hayford Peirce 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)