Talk:Redshift/See Also Dispute June 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure that my thoughts on "See also" lists are quite irrelevent, but if you're making a point, then you've made it. Aside of the that, are there any reasons not to include a "See also" list? --Iantresman 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the best arguments against including such a list is that it doesn't provide any context. As we discussed in mediation, the subjects you wish to include are contextualized most easily by nonstandard cosmologies (which is the current way in which the article links to these ideas). --ScienceApologist 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, no context is required, it's only a list. Either (a) See also lists don't require context... readers are smart enought to know that they will get FULL contect on selecting the article in questions (b) See also lists allow a one-line description where sufficient context can be provided.
No other article on Wikipedia excludes See also links on the ground of context. --Iantresman 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Big Bang article we excluded a See also section for this reason. --ScienceApologist 16:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in the least bit surprised. Nevertheless, this is the raison d'être for See also lists. The Wikipedia Guide to layout on See also lists, notes that "Most topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional bulleted list, as a navigational aid to other related articles in the Wikipedia that have not been linked from free links in the text."
The Wikipedia guideline on lists provides some good reasons for including such lists for the benefit of the reader, and has some helpful suggestions on "List styles", such as those that are "appropriate for long lists, or lists of entries which consist of both a link and explanatory text." --Iantresman 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Since (a) these extra articles are related (b) omitted from the main article (c) an aid for readers on grounds on information and navigation (d) there are no Wikipedia guidelines on "See also" lists and "context", then I can see no reason not to include them. --Iantresman 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read the archives of the Talk:Big Bang page to understand why we did this. Guidelines summarize ideas for how to make good articles, they don't dictate. Proposals rise and fall on their own merits. You have failed to address the fundamental points I outlined except to say that there are no guidelines to help you understand. If you want more input, start an RfC. I consider this discussion finished until you actually address the points I listed. --ScienceApologist 16:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Which points have I not addressed? You mentioned "context"" and I addressed it. Which point have I missed? --Iantresman 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you didn't address the context issues. I was explicit about it. You wanted to debate policy. --ScienceApologist 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And I specifically told you that Either (a) See also lists don't require context... readers are smart enought to know that they will get FULL contect on selecting the article in questions (b) See also lists allow a one-line description where sufficient context can be provided.
  • Which bit would you like help on? --Iantresman 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A debate over the inclusion of a list is an inane topic for discussion, as Ian rightly pointed out here. A debate over the inclusion of this particular list (consisting of Angular size redshift relation, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, and Redshift quantization) has already taken place, and it is a selfishly Ian-centered topic for discussion, as I pointed out here. I encourage ScienceApologist to simply disengage from this debate. There is no reason to have it. Flying Jazz 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At least we agree on something, discussing lists is inane. That this is an Ian-centred list is rubbish. This is a redshift-related list... and that's as objective as you're going to get. If all the editors have items they wish to add, then by all means suggest them. --Iantresman 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is redshift-related list. And your list of three items hand-picked by Ian is not as objective as we're going to get. My list is more objective. Wikipedia is not a place where everyone says "I want to add this, so I will add this." You are thinking of a bulletin board, not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a place where people (except you) are generally able to edit articles and discuss topics in a logical manner instead of slapping lists of unrelated subtopics together. Wikipedia is a place where people (except you) are sufficiently considerate of the reader and of other editors to not add what "they wish to add" unless they have a reason to add each particular item and not add other particular items. Flying Jazz 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is unlike nearly all other encyclopedias because it is indeed a place where everyone says "I want to add this, so I will add this.". Whether material stays is another matter, which is where POLICY and GUIDELINES come in.
ScienceApologist doesn't want the list in because it appears he doesn't want to pollute the pretty little minds of students. You don't want the list in because you appear to consider it ad hoc. There appears to be little objective consistency.
I'm sure you have no intention of going through your objective redshift-related list above, but it will provide a good starting point. Let's do some objective editing:
  • Here is your starting lists (all article that already list to Redshift, 438 items in total)
  • We can remove (A) all articles to which the Redshift article already links to. (B) all redirected pages (8 pages). (C) all Talk: pages (27 pages). (D) all User: pages (17 pages). (E) all User Talk: pages (16 pages). (F) all Wikipedia: pages (19 pages). (G) all pages in which the only occurence of "Redshift" is in the Cosmology Template eg. Grand unification theory. (H) all pages, where the only mention of "Redshift" is as a data characteristics, eg. see data table for NGC 300 (eg. all "NGC *", "Messier *", and "Spiral galaxy *" pages (~100 pages))
  • Resulting in Talk:Redshift Flying Jazz's related redshifts (77 items)
  • Four items stand out as being directly related to "Redshifts": (A) Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (B) Redshift rocket (C) Redshift quantization (D) Angular size redshift relation
  • The vast majority of the list (and I've been through them all), seem to mention redshift in passing.
  • Are there any items that you would consider more significant? --Iantresman 10:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether added material stays is not a result of policies and guidelines. It is a result of the judgement of other editors. That is why you selfishly waste the time of others when you talk about policy, guidelines, and lists instead of talking to other editors here about individual topics or a group of logically-connected topics within redshift. Your post is a continuation of that waste of time. You are confusing list-winnowing with editing and crapping up the talk page. Please stop now or I will be forced to take the next step in the complaining process against you since these posts continue after cabal mediation has ended. Flying Jazz 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, PLEASE take the next step necessary. Mediation, arbitration, or whatever you want. Since there has been no consistent, satisfactory, and reasonable reason not to include certain links to related redshift articles, I will delighted for you to do so. --Iantresman 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you seem to have deleted the results of the Talk:Redshift Flying Jazz's related redshifts page I created. I presume this is inadvertent? --Iantresman 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank ScienceApologist for not posting here at Talk:Redshift and also for deleting the text of an entire Talk page that bore my username while having nothing to do with me. I have placed Talk:Redshift Flying Jazz's related redshifts as a candidate for speedy deletion with the explanation: "This page was created by Iantresman to misrepresent a statement I made. It has no associated article, it never contained meaningful content, it is a page that has nothing to do with me even though it bears my username, and it is an example of Iantresman disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please delete." Flying Jazz 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to elaborate, ScienceApologist is, of course, welcome to post at Talk:Redshift. My appreciation was for his disengagement with Iantresman about this particular See-Also-policy dispute. Flying Jazz 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)