Talk:Argumentation:Child pornography: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
No edit summary |
→Purposed for deletion: new section |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[[Child pornography production as a motive for child abuse]] | *[[Child pornography production as a motive for child abuse]] | ||
*[[Child themed pornography]] | *[[Child themed pornography]] | ||
--[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 02:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I had in mind that "argumentation" pages would present information in more of a FAQ-style format. Kind of like how portals present the same info our articles do, except in a different format. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, if I understand you correctly that's cool. My thought was more along the lines that people doing searches on search engines would not be likely to find that information if it is not better connected to the main topic. People are unlikely to hit those pages based on how they are named. The title names are too obscure. Also, a thing to keep in mind (for all of us including me) is if there is really enough info on each of these sub-topics to justify them having there own page or could they be incorporated into the main page as a sub-topic or even as a reference. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 13:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::It depends on whether the pages actually are going to grow or whether they'll stay stubs forever. It's the old [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism eventualism] vs. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism immediatism] debate. Or the [[wikipedia:Project:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built|Don't demolish the house while it's still being built]] vs. [[wikipedia:Project:An unfinished house is a real problem|An unfinished house is a real problem]] debate. (By the way, the fable the latter uses as an illustration is retarded. "gelatin mixed with kindergarten paste"? What the fuck? | |||
::: | |||
:::On Wikipedia, there's no choice but to [[wikipedia:Project:Beef up that first revision|beef up that first revision]] because otherwise they'll speedily delete pages (usually based on some expansive interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria). Here, you mostly express concerns and say "maybe I'll delete that later". In practice, I think if a page gets a lot of views, it will also tend to get a lot of edits if it's in need of improvement, so the problem fixes itself. It tends to be the better-written pages that people link to a lot and that therefore get a higher pagerank on Google. [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Purposed for deletion == | |||
#Abandoned entry, article, or draft left incomplete having structural issues that make it unreadable. | |||
#No references | |||
#Patent nonsense--[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:23, 21 December 2015
It seems that this page and all of these pages listed below are subtopics and should be combined into one main entry on Child pornography.
- Child pornography as a wedge issue for attacking other freedoms
- Child pornography distribution as a motive for child pornography production
- Child pornography production as a motive for child abuse
- Child themed pornography
--Etenne (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I had in mind that "argumentation" pages would present information in more of a FAQ-style format. Kind of like how portals present the same info our articles do, except in a different format. Lysander (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, if I understand you correctly that's cool. My thought was more along the lines that people doing searches on search engines would not be likely to find that information if it is not better connected to the main topic. People are unlikely to hit those pages based on how they are named. The title names are too obscure. Also, a thing to keep in mind (for all of us including me) is if there is really enough info on each of these sub-topics to justify them having there own page or could they be incorporated into the main page as a sub-topic or even as a reference. --Etenne (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on whether the pages actually are going to grow or whether they'll stay stubs forever. It's the old eventualism vs. immediatism debate. Or the Don't demolish the house while it's still being built vs. An unfinished house is a real problem debate. (By the way, the fable the latter uses as an illustration is retarded. "gelatin mixed with kindergarten paste"? What the fuck?
- On Wikipedia, there's no choice but to beef up that first revision because otherwise they'll speedily delete pages (usually based on some expansive interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria). Here, you mostly express concerns and say "maybe I'll delete that later". In practice, I think if a page gets a lot of views, it will also tend to get a lot of edits if it's in need of improvement, so the problem fixes itself. It tends to be the better-written pages that people link to a lot and that therefore get a higher pagerank on Google. Lysander (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, if I understand you correctly that's cool. My thought was more along the lines that people doing searches on search engines would not be likely to find that information if it is not better connected to the main topic. People are unlikely to hit those pages based on how they are named. The title names are too obscure. Also, a thing to keep in mind (for all of us including me) is if there is really enough info on each of these sub-topics to justify them having there own page or could they be incorporated into the main page as a sub-topic or even as a reference. --Etenne (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
