Talk:List of parson-naturalists
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
See also
I added a link to English Enlightenment and this was reverted. As a reader, I really appreciate a thoughtful breadth in "See also" sections. I decided to refresh my memory as to our policy. Our MOS says:
- The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.[...]Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
As almost all of the parson-naturalists are English, and they continued the work begun in the Enlightenment, I thought a link would be helpful. Imagine my chagrin, however, when I discovered that we have Scottish Enlightenment and Age of Enlightenment, but that "English Enlightenment" redirects to the latter. Perhaps a better link would be Science in the Age of Enlightenment? I'd like something in "see also" to indicate to our readers that these gentlemen-scholars had distinct predecessors; their hobby or passion didn't spring out of nowhere. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- If there is a significant connection, the way to demonstrate it is to find reliable sources that discuss it in detail, and to use those sources in the text. Conclusions drawn by editors like "and they continued the work begun in the Enlightenment" run the risk of original research unless they too are justified by sources, which need to be cited in the text. If the "almost all ... English" is a conclusion drawn from the article, then it is unsafe also. If the Enlightenment point is important, it deserves to be in the text; if it's OR, it doesn't deserve to be in the See also section. I suspect there is indeed a direct connection, i.e. not what the MOS suggests should be in the See also. I hope to see it in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that the connection is strong enough to reach an encyclopedic level of significance; I don't have references suitable for integration in the article. I'm a bit baffled, to be honest. If you suspect a direct connection, then why not include the link in "See also", and wait for it to be fleshed out (i.e. included in the text) when someone develops the article more comprehensively? It's not going to be me, and if it's not you either, fine; the article is still richer with it. I view the "See also" as a door to serendipity, among other things. Prohibitions on original research apply to the main article text, but not to every corner of the project: for example, we don't have to cite external sources of documented confusion in order to head off problems (Soul (disambiguation) see also Sole (disambiguation)). My "editorial judgment and common sense" tell me that it's more helpful to the reader to have a pointer to the intellectual movement Science in the Age of Enlightenment than not to have anything. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, done, we've spilt more ink on this than it's worth. I've said what I think, I shan't repeat myself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the term. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, done, we've spilt more ink on this than it's worth. I've said what I think, I shan't repeat myself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that the connection is strong enough to reach an encyclopedic level of significance; I don't have references suitable for integration in the article. I'm a bit baffled, to be honest. If you suspect a direct connection, then why not include the link in "See also", and wait for it to be fleshed out (i.e. included in the text) when someone develops the article more comprehensively? It's not going to be me, and if it's not you either, fine; the article is still richer with it. I view the "See also" as a door to serendipity, among other things. Prohibitions on original research apply to the main article text, but not to every corner of the project: for example, we don't have to cite external sources of documented confusion in order to head off problems (Soul (disambiguation) see also Sole (disambiguation)). My "editorial judgment and common sense" tell me that it's more helpful to the reader to have a pointer to the intellectual movement Science in the Age of Enlightenment than not to have anything. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If there is a significant connection, the way to demonstrate it is to find reliable sources that discuss it in detail, and to use those sources in the text. Conclusions drawn by editors like "and they continued the work begun in the Enlightenment" run the risk of original research unless they too are justified by sources, which need to be cited in the text. If the "almost all ... English" is a conclusion drawn from the article, then it is unsafe also. If the Enlightenment point is important, it deserves to be in the text; if it's OR, it doesn't deserve to be in the See also section. I suspect there is indeed a direct connection, i.e. not what the MOS suggests should be in the See also. I hope to see it in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of parson-naturalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205103306/http://www.rogerco.freeserve.co.uk/jenyns4.htm to http://www.rogerco.freeserve.co.uk/jenyns4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)