Talk:Meteorology/Books

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 10 March 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

There is a large body of books on meteorology (general, dynamics, cloud physics). this kind of list would be more appropriate in articles about subdiscipline. For example in article about atmospheric thermodynamics one can discuss books on such topics. As such this list is mostly out of context. Pcirrus 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this subpage should be merged with main article under WP:SP Disallowed Uses (3). Deditos 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it should be merged too, but I do appreciate the argument against merging, which is that this practice would decouple reference lists from the parent article and so be able to be used in multiple places. Not sure other Wikipedians would appreciate that enterprise-architect-style of thinking though. Donama (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st, This page is not a subversion of NPOV. It is a working extension of an article that is set to become large and provides a degree of cleanup for the article--if you notice it is not fully referenced.

2nd, merging is the improper usage here according to WP:MM. According to WP:MM, Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. A redirect would be absolutely pointless.

3rd, this subpage is a work in progress, and will be expanded. The original argument doesn't make much sense, however, further bib. additions will make it a pointless one nonetheless. More books are going to be added in the near future, as the base article is being worked on simultaneously (cleaned up etc.).

4th, none of the arguments about subpages have regarded this usage, but refer to what is now the category system, which is not being subverted here, either. And the contents are being transcluded onto the main page.

Lastly, the subpage provides organization which is not text of the article, but is supporting facts and sources for the article. The result is less space is used on the main article wiki. — HRS IAM 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was querying it under point 3 of WP:SP disallowed uses only: Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. You may argue that references are not part of an article (I would disagree with that) but they are certainly part of the encyclopedia, so should be on the main page. One of the reasons I dislike the transclusion of subpages is that to edit the content from the main article page is not intuitive. As far as I can tell, the user has to edit the browser address bar manually rather than click the edit link. Also there's no simple way to navigate back to the main page from the subpage. Not exactly desirable, but maybe I'm missing something.

Is there something special about the Meteorology article that requires this use of a subpage? Or are you proposing it as a way to organise references in all articles? Deditos 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article should be removed. One goes to catalog of any library and search with keyword "meteorology" will provide relevant books. 67.174.218.109 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]