Talk:Nibiru: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chris Day
imported>Chris Day
Line 15: Line 15:
::::I s'ppose, but who knows? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I s'ppose, but who knows? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


I'd see this in Literature if that's where it originated, possibly visual arts if it is a common theme in movies. You can get a finer resolution bu using subgroups.  In this case a 'Pop Culture' subgroup is probably appropriate, or a 'Science Fiction' subgroup. I can see a need for both of these in the long term.  In the same way the Biology workgroup already has a botany, a biochemistry and a genetics subgroup. Subgroups are not really evolving at present, as there are not enough authors, but their role should be obvious fairly obvious as a both second tier categories, as well as having an interdisciplinary role. See [[CZ:Subgroups]] for more on the idea.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd see this in Literature if that's where it originated, possibly Visual Arts if it is a common theme in movies. I think that Media workgroup is a stretch, I would have thought that would be reserved for topics about the media, not about topics they cover.
 
You can get a finer resolution bu using subgroups.  In this case a 'Pop Culture' subgroup is probably appropriate, or a 'Science Fiction' subgroup. I can see a need for both of these in the long term.  In the same way the Biology workgroup already has a botany, a biochemistry and a genetics subgroup. Subgroups are not really evolving at present, as there are not enough authors, but their role should be obvious fairly obvious as a both second tier categories, as well as having an interdisciplinary role. See [[CZ:Subgroups]] for more on the idea.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:16, 15 March 2010

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Fictional planet believed by some doomsayers to be headed on a collision course with Earth and impact on December 21 or 23 in 2012. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Media [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

Pop culture bunk

Created; hot subject "traffic driver" related to 2012.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Workgroups

I dunno nuttin' about this nutty 2012 business, but I *do* know this: an article about an imaginary planet doesn't belong in the Astronomy Workgroup, so I have removed that category from the metadata. Hayford Peirce 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I have NO idea how to do these categories, sorry if I get the wrong ones. I had been looking for a "Pop culture" category but didn't find one.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of Workgroups that *should* be there but aren't. Maybe the new people who run CZ will someday fix it. Hayford Peirce 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
OK if we can bring in more quality authors, maybe this problem will get addressed?--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I s'ppose, but who knows? Hayford Peirce 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd see this in Literature if that's where it originated, possibly Visual Arts if it is a common theme in movies. I think that Media workgroup is a stretch, I would have thought that would be reserved for topics about the media, not about topics they cover.

You can get a finer resolution bu using subgroups. In this case a 'Pop Culture' subgroup is probably appropriate, or a 'Science Fiction' subgroup. I can see a need for both of these in the long term. In the same way the Biology workgroup already has a botany, a biochemistry and a genetics subgroup. Subgroups are not really evolving at present, as there are not enough authors, but their role should be obvious fairly obvious as a both second tier categories, as well as having an interdisciplinary role. See CZ:Subgroups for more on the idea. Chris Day 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Nibiru&oldid=731944"