Category talk:Fledglings

Most of these (IMNSHO) also belong in the category "Encyclopedia". To manually add the category to each of them would be very time-consuming. There is a way to automatically add the category to each of these, by using a "bot".

I suggest that it is essential that BW admin investigate as soon as possible the design and use of "bots" so as to save the time and effort of editors - time which could be much better spent on improving the articles rather than on "mechanical" and "repetitive" tasks, which are exactly what computer programs were designed for - to automate tasks and make life simpler and better for humans.

Until very recently, there was a user here at BW who displayed skills with "bots", but for some reason he has now (apparently) ceased to make any further contributions here at BW. Was he somehow discouraged by the actions or attitudes of some here? User4 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

All articles in Category:Fledgling were put there because they are incomplete. If you wish to finish any of them and add them to the appropriate categories, I would encourage you to do so.

As for Bots, I will ask the BoyWiki counsel what they think.

As for the user you ask about, I don't know who you are talking about?

--Etenne (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

If all articles which are "incomplete" are excluded from the categories which they correctly belong to, then no articles should be classified in any categories.

Wiki articles are always subject to editing and improvement. That, by definition, is exactly what a wiki is! Wiki articles are never "complete". User4 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

Nothing has been purposefully excluded... I looked at the first few articles are all of them were categorized in their proper category. --Etenne (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I see now that you, indeed, don't "get it".

I may have to reconsider my continuing participation here. User4 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

I think you need to ask yourself if you aren't making the same mistakes here that you have made elsewhere. Just because you think it is a good idea doesn't mean other people are going to automatically be on board or that what they think is right is not equally as valid. I have no problem with many of your ideas, I have no problem if you wanted to add every article from every subcategory to Category:Encyclopedia (but not remove them from their proper subcategories) and I certainly have absolutely no problem with you wanting to improve the Help:pages. Where I have a problem is with you trying to say "this has be to changed" and assuming that it is wrong when you have no idea why it was set up that way in the first place or even take into consideration that it might be correct even if you don't know why. --Etenne (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2014 (CEST)

---

There are people who know how to do certain things. And there are people who don't know how to do certain things.

There is an Arabic proverb:

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.
  Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child.
  Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep.
  Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise.
  Follow him."

Hmm... So what do you know? What do you think you know?

For example, what do you know about formulating database queries?

Did you even know that formulating database queries is what we have really been talking about all along?

"Just because you think it is a good idea doesn't mean other people are going to automatically be on board..."

True. That is covered in the above proverb.

"...or that what they think is right is not equally as valid."

Valid opinions are held by those who know. Invalid opinions are a complete waste of time. (See the above proverb.)

Excuse me that - after having carefully, very patiently, and repeatedly, explained a number of important things - I have now become less diplomatic in my approach.

My bad.

User4 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (CEST)