Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology

WikiProject Sociology Project talk Participants Task force Assessment To do Article lists & tools Popular pages Peer review Templates Category tree

Witchcraft: Requested move

There's a discussion about moving the article Witchcraft to Witchcraft (classical) and moving Witchcraft (disambiguation) to Witchcraft instead, at Talk:Witchcraft#Requested move 19 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sociology

Sociology has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of 'Welsh Revolt' move discussion

Helô! I have opened a discussion at Welsh Revolt about moving the article to 'Glyndŵr Rebellion'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Diolch, A.D.Hope (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Man, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National identity#Requested move 12 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)#Requested move 16 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)#Requested move 16 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Help transferring Template:Slavery to Simple English

Hello all, I am mostly editing on Simple English Wikipedia, which is a "simpler" version of this Wikipedia. In that context, we do have an article on Slavery (at simple:Slavery) which has been on SEWP since 2003, and which is now on its path to becoming a "Good Article". The problem we have though is that {{Slavery}}, the Template referencing all the Slavery-related articles has been brought over. As you can imagine, SEWP is much smaller, and we don't have most of the articles the template references. As we are a small community, I would therefore like to invite anyone who wants to to help out. I see the task as follows:

• Look at the Slavery template (simple:Template:Slavery), and assess which of those articles (of the 70-80 red-links) should be created at Simple. This is likely a collaborative effort. The template on Simple English can then be changed to only contain the articles selected.
• Creating the articles selected. While it may take a little time to get into the "Simple English mindset", the learning curve likely is a steep one. If it's just simplification, there is a community of editors who are willing to help.

I have created a few articles of the template myself, but I am neither a historian, nor a sociologist; also, some of the articles the template references at this Wikipedia likely need a review or rewrite. Note also, the idea is not to tell the "feel-good story" at school, that beforehand there was slavery, but that we have overcome it, and since the UN, and other bodies released the few treaties that abolished it (in the first half of the 20th century, mostly), we have overcome it. The idea is to tell the same nuanced story than this Wikipedia does. Slavery has existed for a long time, and it still exists today, but naming might have changed, and methods will probably have changed as well.

Topic-wise, the focus of Simple English is the same as the regular English wikipedia; in Simple English, the focus might lie a little more on explaining well.

Since this is not what I studied, all I can do is base myself on the respective ENWP article; as outlined, several of those need work.

I am sorry if I posted this to the wrong board, but if anyone feels like this might be a welcome challenge, feel free to join us. Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is not a native English speaker it is very dificult for me to judge what counts as regular or simple English, but I wish you luck on this, it seems like good work for an important topic!★Trekker (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Rest assured, I am also not a native speaker, I learned at least two other languages, before learning English. As it stands atm, I am more concerned about not having the subject-knowelde required to write some of these articles. The language-issues (and also making the article fit the wiki), I think are secondary. Eptalon (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the note, @Eptalon, but for anyone who is weighing helping out with this vs. some other editing, I'd have to emphasize that contributions to SEW have a tiny fraction of the value to readers of contributions here on English Wikipedia. That's because basically no one reads SEW — the slavery article there has had 1,304 views in the past month, compared to 58,502 for the article here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I am well aware of the fact that the edtor base, target group (to some extent), and readership is different. Without going into detail here, the impact will be different too. As there are far fewer editors, there are also far fewer rules and regulations. SEWP is a small wiki. I am probably one of the "most long-term" editors of that project, and have been with SEWP since 2006 or 2007. The slavery article we are talking about was created in 2003, well before my time. I posted this notice because I thought there might be interest. Interest is hopefully independent of economic caclulations of "impact". As to some of the articles I recently created, I also saw that some of the counterparts on this Wiki are in dire need of attention, but no one seems to have touched them in years. So, yes, every coin has two sides... Eptalon (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Interest is hopefully independent of economic caclulations of "impact" Last time I checked, we write Wikipedia for readers. I do not think it's a good use of editor time to be writing for a Wikipedia with barely any readers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

While technically the site exists for the sake of readers I think its pretty fair to say most editors edit for their own enjoyment.★Trekker (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion; Wikipedia should also reflect the cultural diversity of its community. But that is beside the point. I have left the message above, you have made it clear that in your opinion, people who hold minority positions are not worthy of support. Remember: the majority opinion is always the right one. In states, this ensures that the government fairly represents all groups. I did not come here to discuss. Message is above, do what you think is right. Eptalon (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)