Talk:Dream dictionary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Comments
soryyy i dont have the information on what you are looking for...try some were else
thank you
marry
[edit] External Links
Please don't post link to MALJONICSDREAMS.COM anymore.
There is two reasons for that. Firstly, you can't post your own link according to rules of wiki. Secondly, you site is MFA site.
- If you are talking to me - 1. I do not own any websites, least of all this one. 2. I didn't link to this site, but don't see why it should not be linked to on this page. 3. What is an MFA site? Jonathanpops 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think you cleverest person, that you just put whois privacy? Anyone can go to http://whois.domaintools.com/ and have a look for whois history of your domain.
- Yes, yes, very good. I've been through this already with other people. My username is Jonathanpops and the owner of that site is called Jonathan, ergo I must be the same person. I've heard it all before. If it was true that I wanted to promote my own site/s I would have used a different name, or perhaps you think I not the cleverest person?
And on top of everything else this is besides the point because even if it was my site I didn't add the link to it in the first place. I have added the link to that site in the past on the Dream page and had the same discussion about me owning it, which got so frustrating that just don't bother adding links to anything any more.
I think the link fits here, it is a link to a dream dictionary on a page about dream dictionaries. I did not add it but I will defend its right to be here and I would be having the same discussion with you if it were the dreammoods site you kept deleting for no reason.Jonathanpops 11:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not so sure I would defend the DreamsTell! site now that I had a proper look at it though. It is a bit of a half hearted attempt at a dream dictionary with only two entries for some letter.Jonathanpops 11:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the external links, the rule of thumb is to have dream symbols dictionaries of all kinds. Maljonics, Dreammoods, Dreamstell, are all dream dictionaries and they cannot be deleted unless they do not follow the guidelines set for external links. Instead of discussing the deletion of Maljonics or the other two(or upcoming dictionaries in future), we should protect this article from link spammers. For instance, I have been deleting the "humanform" link, which does not have even one definition of a dream, but it has a google search engine and uses this to display content of other sites to make money. I think we should be careful about these kinds of sites instead of wasting time with a meaningless discussion. By the way, another suggestion is to add more textual sources and if possible create articles for the books that are mentioned in this article. Happy New Year to all! Long live Wikipedia...
-
- Hi Maestroka, you've just answered my question about humanform on the link cleanup bit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dream#Link_cleanup - maybe it should be removed from that page too?Jonathanpops
Do the external links really need labels attached? Surely it's pretty obvious what they are without adding extra text, or is that standard wikipedia practice or something?Jonathanpops 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
All the links added by 86.132.196.120 are related to York Interweb. maljonicsdreams has poor and unsourced content, like all the other sites created by this company. For me looks like linkspam, and all the other sites mentioned by 86.132.196.120 have been removed from their respective articles. My vote is to remove it from here as well.
"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."
About dreamstell, the same weak content exists, except for this very good page: http://www.dreamstell.net/related.html. Of course, it is good only because copies content from Dream
Stellatomailing 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you if this was the dreams page, but this is the dream dictionary page. How can any dream dictionary be factual? There's no such thing as a factual dream dictionary. Jonathanpops 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
YOu have a point. I would consider a "proper" dream dictionary something based on works by Jung/Freud. In the absence of that, maybe we should remove all of them ("Wikipedia is nopt a collection of links, etc. etc."). What do you think?
Stellatomailing 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree with you. As Jonathanpops said, dream dictionary does not have to base its definitions on psychological analysis (of Freud, Jung, or any other 19th-20th century scientist). If you have read the article, dream dictionaries are divided into two, as one being scientific and the other traditional. The traditional is based on myths, Biblical stories, or cultural symbols and does not have to be scientific or related with psychology. If we have to group these kinds of dictionaries in another way, they could be called spiritual dream dictionaries. Looking at the issue from your perspective (which I share), the links (and the books) should also be grouped into two (psychological/traditional interpretations). Unlike you, I don't think there are many links. In fact, my suggestion is to add some more (scientific) sources that are based on psychology. Books, should certainly be grouped and the list should be enlarged. --Scientia Potentia 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds ok up to a point Stellatomailing. I do think we have to try and not push a point of view too much, though I know it can be very difficult with such a controvercial subject as dreams. Jonathanpops 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's ok with me. I liked Maestroka point of that we actually have two POVs on Dream Dictionaries; my only point would be better material for linkage, not any material, but you guys are the more active here and have the opinion that the links are good enough; so I "retreat". :-) Stellatomailing 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole section pretty much fails our guidelines - Links are supposed to provide useful information about the subject, not simply link to examples. What is currently here seems to be an indiscriminate directory of dream interpretation sites, which is not in keeping with our policies or guidelines. External links on an article like this would be better focused on, for instance, a well respected analysis of dream dictionaries, or an article on historical dream dictionaries. I've added a clean up tag. -- SiobhanHansa 12:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I totally agree. I think the links on the page show visitors what a dream dictionary actually is, what they look like. If all we had was a link to another page describing a dream dictionary, visitors still would not actually know what one looks like if they hadn't seen one before, which I would assume is the case if they're looking it up. Jonathanpops 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with SiobhanHansa's description of the current external links as an "indiscriminate directory". Linking to one or two examples of dream dictionaries is a good idea, but only if we can find ones that are notable or contain verifiable content (e.g., sourced information on historical interpretations of particular dream elements). The sites currently linked simply give the non-notable opinions of their authors. For now, I'd recommend replacing the list with a link to the DMOZ category for dream dictionaries. EALacey 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- All the links from this page seem to have been deleted. I have postd my dream dictionary. I do beleive that posting links is valid. How else is such information to be conveyed. I have spent years analysing dreams. Its not a science. Yet I have attempted to backwards engineer dreams. Look at important events that could trigger dreams. Then see how the dream symbols relate to reality. Hey I maybe spamming. But other than posting up an entire dream dictionary how is such information to be conveyed. Really I thought this was a half decent sitye. Now I just see certain people enforce their own ideas. There is really no democracy.
For your interest this is my site
That link to http://dmoz.org is useless. Its just a dream directory. Its imposible to joing it because the peopkle who run the sitys have long since lost interest. Just dump it. Its worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.128.142 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of dream symbols
We should include information about the various sources and inspirations for symbols. Some dicts use classical mythos; others refer to religious texts and stories; others still apply astrological knowledge. Some authors argue that these symbols are universal—I believe that symbols are ultimately personal and experiential, but are culturally influenced. How symbols are abstracted depend on how we perceive them in real life, consciously and subconsciously. —Nahum Reduta 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cites?
Where are your citations, man? I see references but no cites... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.238.141 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
