User talk:Kpmiyapuram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kpmiyapuram, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Related and specialist subtopics

I assume wikipedia trying to be encyclopediac means that related information is to be assembled as one article. Sometimes there are specialised articles elsewhere separate from a main article and the main articles are left with less improvisation from wikipedians. I think only experts would be searching for specialist topics. I have been particularly looking at Classical conditioning, operant conditioning and reinforcement. But then if we try to merge articles togther then the main article can become too lengthy. I guess there needs to be a compromise somewhere. Is there anyway (such as a bot) to gather related articles together. Kpmiyapuram 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the articles shouldn't be merged. If the articles were to be merged, the content would be too lengthy and crash in some browsers. There is a substantial difference among the three. Real96 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Thanks. i did not mean that these three articles i have cited above were to be merged. I meant that specialist topics around these themes have gained separate webpages that was not necessary. For example superimposed schedules of reinforcement is a separate article from reinforcement and really the former is a subset of the latter and does not come in any other context except reinforcement. It appears that wikipedians are ignoring the main articles for the sake of specialistic articles. Kpmiyapuram 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is something that you need to discuss on the talk page of the related articles. Like if you want to merge superimposed schedules of reinforcement into reinforcement then you would drop a note on Talk:superimposed schedules of reinforcement and Talk:reinforcement about the possibility of merging the two articles. Other editors would then comment and from there you all figure out if that is indeed a good thing to do :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another question i have is on subcategories

If we take a subject such as neuroscience, we could in principle make certain categories likes systems, cognitive, computational, behavioral etc neurosciences ... i remeber having seen them as boxes in some neuroscience articles. Buit when wikipedians give categories to articles, then we get many similar categories. some examples are cognition, cognitive science etc. Again is there some bot to enforce some well defined categories and subcategories. Kpmiyapuram 14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should perform searches on the content first before creating an article as well as read through the welcome message content first. There are rules in merging such articles such as conflict of interest. Real96 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Again this question was not about merging articles, but rather make a hierarchy of categories. Kpmiyapuram 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case sensitive

I think wikipedia standard is to have lower case for all words that are not the first word in the title of a page. Why is wikipedia case sensitive? That makes searching for a topic difficult or possibly too many articles with case sensitive first letters of important words need to be created and redirected to the correct page. Can i tag an article title to be case insensitive. Kpmiyapuram 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Hi,

Yeah, I thought it important that the previous merge be noted. I don't really have strong feelings past this point, though it really might be worthwhile to merge all the schedules of reinforcement stuff back into a single page, with only basic info on the reinforcement page itself. I don't think undoing the merge isn't a bad idea per se, but you might want to let the editor who performed the original merge (User:Janarius) why you are doing so, and possibly discuss it with him/her/it/them a bit first. Consolidating everything into a single article really seems like a good idea, it means you aren't duplicating definitions on new pages.

WLU 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)