This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article was
copy edited by
Braincricket, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 January 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
The 'see also' section is way too long at present; it reads more like all the topics a survivalist would want to read into, which isn't the purpose of the see also section. If anyone has the know-how to sort the necessary wheat from the really quite substantial chaff, it would be appreciated.—
Ineffablebookkeeper (
talk) ({{
ping}} me!)
17:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree. Someone was probably trying to build a topic index there. I just deleted an over-long "See also" section from a related article.
[1]
Also, the "Terminology" section seems kind of unsourced and arbitrary. James Rawles has a long glossary on his blog (and for this topic he's an expert), but without a criteria there's no way to pick which entries to include. Glossaries don't seem like standard parts of Wikipedia articles. I'll delete them both unless anyone objects.
WestRiding24 (
talk)
04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at it again, the list looks useful to readers interested in the topic. Instead of deleting it outright, I'll put it into a
List of survivalism topics article.
That wouldn't be appropriate for the terminology section, which is probably impossible to make fully compliant with Wikipedia rules.
WestRiding24 (
talk)
00:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply