Template talk:Crimin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was thinking perhaps we should separate the schools into different sections based on their level of analysis. In other words, which schools have macro/micro viewpoints? Boneheadmx 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Rather than make it a wish list with a lot of red on it, I was going to allow the infobox to evolve as I added material. Even as it is, it is unwelcoming because there are too many unlinked pages. But I entirely agree with you as a longer term aim. David91 12:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criminologists
I think the of criminologists needs to go. Listing Michael Maltz there troubles me. I know that Michael wrote the article himself, (a practice strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, as it's difficult for one to be NPOV when writing about oneself). I've gone in after him to cleanup the article and try make in more NPOV. And, I recognize he has contributed a lot to criminology, so won't call for deleting the article (as tends to be done with autobiographical articles). But, there are many other important criminologists that ought to have articles, which I could write. Once that happens, the list of criminologists will be too much for an infobox. Of the ones listed now, it's a *select* list and not necessarily representative. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just deleted that section. If we can come up with a better way to recognize key criminologists, I'd be open to re-adding the section. Just the way it was, seemed problematic to me. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- In some sense I agree that linking to stubs (which most of them were) is unsatisfactory, but I was seeking to maximise the utility of the information already available in Wiki. Linking to something, it seemed to me, is better than not linking at all. If that produces an unsatisfactory response from a reader who knows more, that reader may be inspired to add good material. As it is, we now have poor quality material lurking out of sight and, except in the most exceptional of instances, no-one will find it and possibly improve it. I will not revert this change, but I invite you to reconsider or to commit to upgrading the entries and restoring the section in the near future. David91 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think Portal:Criminal justice is the best way to present a "who's who" in the field. My main objection to using the template to list criminologists is that the list was so short (with glaring omissions). A more complete list of criminologists would be too lengthy for template inclusion. At this point, we also need to take the criminologist articles with a grain of salt, review them for NPOV, and add articles where needed. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- In some sense I agree that linking to stubs (which most of them were) is unsatisfactory, but I was seeking to maximise the utility of the information already available in Wiki. Linking to something, it seemed to me, is better than not linking at all. If that produces an unsatisfactory response from a reader who knows more, that reader may be inspired to add good material. As it is, we now have poor quality material lurking out of sight and, except in the most exceptional of instances, no-one will find it and possibly improve it. I will not revert this change, but I invite you to reconsider or to commit to upgrading the entries and restoring the section in the near future. David91 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the world is not going to end if criminologists are not included at this point. I will add a query to my list of things to do for additional material on some of the main figures. David91 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
