→Scientist?: ty |
BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) →Scientist?: my 2p worth |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
::::Thanks, Rosiestep. I've asked {{u|BrownHairedGirl}} whether they would like to comment because they're clued-up on categorisation, which I am generally not. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
::::Thanks, Rosiestep. I've asked {{u|BrownHairedGirl}} whether they would like to comment because they're clued-up on categorisation, which I am generally not. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
Coming here per ping, and per request on my talk page. I see that [[:Category:Anthropologists]] is a subcat of [[:Category:Social scientists]], and [[Anthropology]] is a subcat of [[:Category:Social sciences]].<br />So it makes sense to me that [[:Category:British anthropologists]] should be under [[:Category:British social scientists]]. |
|||
However, that doesn't really change anything wrt the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Vane_Russell&curid=33088027&diff=726453724&oldid=720523828] which prompted this discussion. A [[social scientist]] is still a type of scientist according the prevailing view, so [[:Category:19th-century British scientists]] is an appropriate categ for a 19th-century British social scientist. <small>(Personally, I regard the the term "social science" as an unhelpful and distracting characterisation of the aims and methodologies of those critically important intellectual disciplines, but my minority view is irrelevant to the categorisation issues here).</small> -[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:44, 22 June 2016
This user is a participant in WikiProject New Zealand. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
New Zealand politics task force
This user wants you to join WikiProject NZ politics. |
To join the New Zealand politics taskforce, please place the following on your user page:
{{User WikiProject New Zealand/politics}}
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hugo999! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
CFD talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Category:Wine regions of Bulgaria
Category:Wine regions of Bulgaria, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Wine regions. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.
Natural track luge
Hello Hugo999, please help me to create an article about natural luge (maybe you know about the the track in Naseby - New Zealand). Sorry, my English is not very good, greeting from Southtyrol/Italy Rodelfreak --Rodelfreak (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturbahnrodeln
Hi, I have little knowledge of Luge. Or of Naseby in Otago in the deep south of New Zealand. Looking at the List of natural luge tracks most (all?) natural tracks do not justify their own article. I would say to expand the "Natural track luge" section of the Luge article first, unless you have too much material for that section! Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Briers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monarch of the Glen (television series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:South Korean television miniseries has been nominated for discussion
Category:South Korean television miniseries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Random86 (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
For helping with the years in Latin music categories, I present to you a cookie for your contributions. Thanks again! Erick (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC) |
Category:World War II battlefields has been nominated for discussion
Category:World War II battlefields, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Scientist?
Hi, I'm not convinced about this. did you read the article or just go off the fact that the anthropology category is present? If anything, he was an amateur historian and folklorist, not a scientist. Anthropology is a broad church, especially when amateurs like Russell get involved. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well "British anthropologist" is a subcategory of "British scientist" (though I thought another of the four in that category was doubtful as a (19th-century British) scientist Hugo999 (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise that. It might be more of an issue relating to the category arrangements than the article subject. No way was Russell a scientist - British administrators of that period were either scientific racists or folklorists (it's one of my pet subjects!), and he was more of a William Crooke than an H. H. Risley. The category hierarchy etc on Wikipedia is a complete mess and I often see people saying it should be torn down and re-created. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, Scientific racism isn't a science! Well, not by modern standards anyway. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to pester you. Perhaps the problem is that Category:British anthropologists should be under Category:British social scientists rather than Category:British scientists. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Pgae Stalker who got here from somewhere else) I agree, Category:British anthropologists should be under Category:British social scientists. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rosiestep. I've asked BrownHairedGirl whether they would like to comment because they're clued-up on categorisation, which I am generally not. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Coming here per ping, and per request on my talk page. I see that Category:Anthropologists is a subcat of Category:Social scientists, and Anthropology is a subcat of Category:Social sciences.
So it makes sense to me that Category:British anthropologists should be under Category:British social scientists.
However, that doesn't really change anything wrt the edit[1] which prompted this discussion. A social scientist is still a type of scientist according the prevailing view, so Category:19th-century British scientists is an appropriate categ for a 19th-century British social scientist. (Personally, I regard the the term "social science" as an unhelpful and distracting characterisation of the aims and methodologies of those critically important intellectual disciplines, but my minority view is irrelevant to the categorisation issues here). -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)