Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSociology Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconCouncil
WikiProject iconThis page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.

Help transferring Template:Slavery to Simple English[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2019–2021 Iraqi protests#Requested move 21 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 00:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Affordable housing in the United States[edit]

Hi all, I am a student at Rice University planning to create a new article on affordable housing in the United States. I'm planning on removing some of the information from the "United States" section of the "Affordable housing by country" article to put it into my new article, which will be linked to the parent article. I have details about my plans on my user page, as well as a draft of my proposed plans/references in my sandbox Efloden (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Childcare and benefits/subsidies[edit]

Hi, lately I have been trying to make sense of the articles concerning Child care and a couple of issues have come up. So here are some ideas.

The 'main' article Child care contains a lot of information, and the subparts about the USA, Mexico and UK have just exploded. Also the subject of childcare benefits/subsidies has been somewhat interwoven, but by the complexity of benefits it can easily overtake the whole article. Also discoverability of the subject of infant care got me wondering. On each of these points follows some more.

In the case of the USA there also exists Child and family services, which seems to be a purely USA based organization and literally has a section about childcare in the USA. To improve readability it would be better to move the majority to a designated page Childcare in the USA or combine it with Child and family services. This also reduces scattering of information. A couple of internal article links will probably be helpful for faster finding each page.

In the case of Mexico a new page is needed. A lot of background about ongoing debates and considerations are included, which does not give a quick overview of what is the (current) situation. It seems as if one editor has gathered a lot of information and made a big effort, but it contains so many details that it deserves its own page, and maybe discussion about what should be included and what not.

In the case of the UK, the article starts with England and it never becomes clear whether any of the information is also relevant for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Scotland is only mentioned in the last paragraph. As each of the four parts of the UK can make their own policies, there probably are differences, but in this case it is hard to say if there are any. In my opinion a choice should be made between shortly mentioning the situation in each part of the UK, or (re)writing a more general text about the system in the UK and moving differences into the mentioned article Child care in the United Kingdom.

On infantcare: the page Child care starts with mentioning that the page covers care for children from two weeks of age. In the case of Spain this results in mentioning maternity leave, and Norway mentioning parental leave, and in both cases not much else. Should parentail leave policies be included or not? Also, should infantcare be explicitly mentioned in the introduction as to clarify that it belongs here, and should infantcare redirect to this page for now?

On childcare benefits/subsidies: almost every developed country has some form of childcare subsidy, also under the names of 'benefit', 'out of school care subsidy', 'infantcare subsidy', 'subsidy benefits', 'fee support' or 'assistance'. At this moment this information is partially interwoven into Child care, where for some countries it is the sole text and for others it is not mentioned at all. This shows to me that many people interpret the purpose of this page differently. In the introduction of the page the word 'payments' is only shortly mentioned, under which one could include subsidies. By the nature of subsidies each country can make its own choices, thus making for complex and long texts very quickly. Would it be useful to create a separate article on Childcare subsidy, maybe similar to Child benefit? Or is the choice to keep it in this article, thus making explicit that 'payments' includes subsidies? Or a combination with short mentioning of the benefit amounts and referral to an overview article and if available a country specific page?

A lot of issues, and I am wondering what would be good solutions.

Frisie (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please note that Superstition, 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, 9 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Communication for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to have a look at it. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. For a short FAQ on the FA reviewing process, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please note that Power (social and political), 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, 23 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Merger discussion for Global warming controversy[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Global warming controversy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Digital media use and mental health[edit]

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]