Talk:Nibiru: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris Day |
imported>Thomas Wright Sulcer (→Workgroups: r) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::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. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:27, 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. [[User:Chris Day|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.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:48, 15 March 2010
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)