Talk:Frogs into Princes

Useful versus True

See discussion in: Tosey, Paul; Mathison, Jane (2009). "'Useful versus True' — Theory, Knowledge and Pseudoscience". Neuro-Linguistic Programming. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9780230248311_10. ISBN 978-1-349-35428-3. --Notgain (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are for discussions intended towards improving the article, not a general discussion forum. It's not clear that the reason that you posted this here falls into the former category. Skyerise (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Skyerise. That chapter discusses this book, Frogs into Princes which is widely discussed in the literature across many disciplines. I have not had a chance to summarise it yet for this article. Currently looking for third party sources that discuss to expand the reception and criticism section. By the way, are you ok with using sfn on this article moving forward for the citation format given that it just new? --Notgain (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No. You started with ref, and ref it stays. Skyerise (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless the consensus shifts. --Notgain (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Not bloody likely. Please review WP:MEAT - you cannot recruit off-Wikipedia friends for support. Skyerise (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and see WP:CANVAS: you also cannot attempt to recuit like-minded Wikipedia editors. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not decided by a straw poll anyway so it would not matter. --Notgain (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing doesn't matter. Stop brewing tempests in tea cups and leave citation styles alone. Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Unless the consensus shifts" does not imply recruiting friends or like-minded individuals. But as you know we could seek RFC, third party comment or other dispute resolution mechanism to resolve disputes. --Notgain (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Except that most Wikipedians agree with WP:REFVAR. Do what you will, if you like to waste your time pointlessly. Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I will provide my third-party comment by saying the current cite journal/book templates look fine as they are, other than the missing ISBN one. Changing the citation style offers no real benefit here either since the same sources aren't used abundantly with different page numbers that need indicating. Reconrabbit 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. I've added the missing ISBN. Thanks Skyerise and Reconrabbit. --Notgain (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Short Description Options

Here's my suggestions in order of preference for the short description:

1. "1979 Book by Bandler and Grinder" (30 characters)
2. Early Neuro-Linguistic Programming Book (39 characters)
3. 1979 book (9 characters)
4. Early and Influential NLP book (30 characters)

--Notgain (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't waste time on this. Also note that headings and short descrtiptions use sentence caps. Short descriptions should not be vague (year is preferred to "early"), and should not include opinions ("influential" is right out.) You really need to start editing things you are not emotionally involved with and learn Wikipedia culture instead of acting like you are somehow more privileged than other editors. Skyerise (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What you put is fine. I preferred 1 but I think your suggestion was perfectly fine. Thanks. --Notgain (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The primary purpose of short descriptions is to help the reader be sure they have found what they are looking for. In this case, they probably know they are looking for a neuro-linguistic programming book, but may or not know the authors names. Therefore 1 is inferior to the current short description. Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)