User talk:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday11-12/History

Whatsapp Group Chat
This group has been coordinating work on sandbox assignment in a Whatsapp group chat. The main points were duplicated on the discussion pages, but the majority of communication was happening in the chat.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Things to be sorted out (follow up from meeting on MS Teams (3rd Nov)
Hi everyone! This is a quick summary of things we have discussed during the call on MS Teams so that everyone can follow up with whatever they have to do.


 * 1. Add subheadings for the section on 	History of Medicine as a Discipline
 * 2. Add examples for the Emergence of Sustainable Architecture in the 20th Century
 * 3. Possible collaborative work under History of Lifestyle Medicine as a Discipline (Technology (IT) or culture)
 * 4. Completion of History of Economics as a Discipline
 * 5. Formatting - moving history of history to the top of the page
 * 6. Formatting - referencing, proper reference instead of links, deal with invalid links, repeated citations etc.

Let me know if there's anything that I missed out! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have refined the formatting for the repeated citations on the history of history section and moved it to the top of the page as well! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

General Guidance Questions/Points to Consider
Hello! As we’ve discussed before, we should create a list of some general questions and points to address to help guide us in our research of the history of our disciplines, and structuring and editing of the content.

List of questions to consider:
 * 1. What is the discipline? (Include definitions; explain the core nature of the discipline.)
 * 2. How did the discipline start? When? Why? Where? (Explore roots of the discipline and its potential beginning markers.)
 * 3. How has the discipline developed over the years?
 * 4. Explore and evaluate the different approaches to the discipline, perhaps in the perspectives of other disciplines. (Talk extensively about the integration of disciplines!)
 * 5. Evaluate the methodologies and working practices of the discipline.
 * 6. How did the discipline end (if yet/ever)? - Maybe we can consider and discuss the potential precursors to its possible downfall if any.

That’s all I can think of right now — what else should or may be good to be addressed? Any questions/points already mentioned that we should place most emphasis on? -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a really good guideline! I think point 3 is a really good opportunity to introduce interdisciplinarity as well; we could potentially focus on the impact or influences of other disciplines in the development of the discipline. I think it might also be interesting to explore the history of conflict with other disciplines as well. --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about including in the introduction to a discipline, such as Psychology, about how a paradigm shift, and a change in perspectives in society, have contributed to a shift in the approach towards an interdisciplinary study. For example, how disciplines which were not connected before, have been connected due to a change in social, environmental or political perspectives. Do you think this is a good idea to include in the introduction to a section if applicable to that specific section? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, that sound's like a great idea! Though, in terms of structure, I personally think that would more appropriately be fitted under a subsection of the development of a discipline, rather than the introduction. (Unless it were to be briefly introduced in the introduction.) At least for the discipline of Lifestyle Medicine (which I'm currently working on), I'd structure it that way whereby the initial working practices of lifestyle medicine involved nutrition and diet primarily, but now is approached by and intercalated with many other disciplines such as Psychology, Culture, Language etc. (Though I've not yet considered whether it was as a result of any of those factors you've mentioned, so I'll now keep that in mind, thank you!) -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to introduce interdisciplinarity itself, and perhaps even what 'the history of disciplines' means, before diving into the disciplines at the beginning of the overall structure. Perhaps a short and concise introduction would be helpful to understand the page. Is this suitable? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think those are great ideas! Just go ahead! You don't need to ask permission to add sections that you think would be good. -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely! I agree — setting the general context at the start of the page would be really helpful for the reader (and ourselves to be honest). -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel that there is one other important point. The guidance for this assignment states that high-quality examples are quite specific, they talk about the history of a certain issue/concept/methodology in the discipline(s). -- Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guys! Great ideas so far and I did use this template while writing about Public Health. I think another point we should keep in mind is that many of disciplines we each have written about overlap considerably so let's collaborate to write their interdisciplinary section? For example, public health and lifestyle medicine or public health and economics. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sustainable Architecture
Hello! I’ve added my first draft about sustainable architecture. It definitely needs more examples of historic events and disciplines that brought about sustainable architecture in “The 20th century. Emergence of sustainable architecture” section, I’ll try to come up with some later. Feel free to contribute! -- Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Noted! I've made really minor edits to some minor spelling errors and brushed up the Wikitext referencing format. Hope that's okay with you! Do let me know if not though. Thanks! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lifestyle Medicine
Hello! I've just added an introductory section under History of Lifestyle Medicine As a Discipline. Feel free to add to it! I'll be adding more sections under it very soon and let everyone know of it soon. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Would love to elaborate and contribute to the section about Interdisciplinarity between public health and lifestyle medicine! Would Kerocringe09 maybe like to collaborate on this section so the process is more efficient for both of us? --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure! I'll add any more information I can find after you're done with your part so just let me know. Thanks! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I am done adding my inputs to that section. Please elaborate anywhere that you feel may be lacking. Or actually, I needed help finding a reference for general recommendations provided by lifestyle medicine specialists, if you could help with that, it would be grand! Thanks! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! Sorry for getting back to you on such a late note! Thanks for your contribution! Here are some resources that mention some proposed (or already existing) lifestyle medicine applications in public health and health policy:
 * - Lifestyle Medicine: The Health Promoting Power of Daily Habits and Practices
 * - Medicine’s Response to Lifestyle-Related Preventable Illness


 * Hope they're helpful! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The first one is perfect! Thanks for your contribution. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Resources for Lifestyle Medicine - Technology subsection
Hello! So I've left the Technology subsection empty so please feel free to start it off! It's a really interesting part because in this case, I think technology plays more than one role in lifestyle medicine. It seems to be both the cause of a problem (that lifestyle medicine looks to address) and one that aids lifestyle medicine's practices. So you could go down any of those routes or even both! The problem refers to 'technology-induced pathology' where things like gaming disorders and social media addiction is tackled through lifestyle medicine-based approaches. In terms of its benefits, lifestyle medicine has been cooperating technology as a means to further address its goals more efficiently and effectively with the ever-evolving advancement of technology, such as through digitalised health applications (e.g. fitness and diet tracking). I think this will be really cool to talk about as technology has both positive and negative impacts, or rather lifestyle medicine and technology interact with each other in very different manners! If any of you are interested in contributing to that subsection, I have some interesting resources to get you started on it (although some of these aren't available as full texts admittedly):
 * - Chapter 17 - Technology-Induced Pathology: Watch (This) Space
 * - Lifestyle medicine and use of technology in current healthcare
 * - Utilizing Digital Health Technologies for Patient Education in Lifestyle Medicine
 * - Scaling lifestyle medicine with technology *Note: this is a blog post/article, but a good read regardless!

I'll add more to the list above if I find anymore useful resources. I'd love to see what else you guys can find out about this and hear your thoughts on this particular topic! Please do let me know if you end up contributing so we can discuss more about this if you'd like. Thanks! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have added a little information into the section about psychology's contribution to lifestyle medicine. I hope it is alright, and please feel free to edit and morph it. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course it's fine! I'll give it a read soon, thanks! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

History
Hi Everyone! I've just transferred my sandbox content from my previous seminar sandbox, it's the section on history of history. Feel free to add new sections or let me know if there's anything you would like to discuss! Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I added a new section on history and other disciplines as suggested by some of you during the MS teams call we had previously, hope it all makes sense! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Medicine
Hello! I was thinking about how we could also include a section on the history of medicine, especially as how once connected with technology, there was a shift in more research findings, and changes in medical procedures such as operating a laparoscopic procedure, or any newly introduced minimally invasive procedures which reduces the risk of blood loss and infections. Along with technology, we could include how we can now conduct neonatal surgeries and perhaps even on the shift from natural birth procedures to a C-section if the baby is not in suitable conditions to be delivered through a natural birth. Does anyone have any more ideas? I might start this section, please feel free to add on or edit! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Economics
Hey! I was just reading through the sub-section of Conflict between Economics and Other Disciplines and while I really liked the points made, I think they could be elaborated and referenced much more with just some more research. I'll get that done by tonight. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I saw your edits and your resource was really interesting and inspired me to add more to the history section! Is it okay if I shift some parts or your edit to incorporate it into the history section and also add to what you said in the conflict section to merge your edit into the existing stuff? Thanks!! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no problem! Please let me know once you're done. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've edited it! I saw your edits and tried my best to incorporate them into one big coherent paragraph! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Would 'I am very blind' like to collaborate on an interdisciplinary exploration into public health and economics, taking into account the covid situation right now as well as the rise of biological weapons? Or if anyone else would like to, please message me! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd love to collaborate! What sort of direction would you like to go into regarding the interdisciplinary ties between public health and economics? -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was thinking of exploring the situation regarding Covid-19 as many countries are easing lockdown measures, even though cases continue rising, due to a crippling economy. It represents a conflict of interest in the Interdisciplinarity of public health and economics and would be great to research and analyse. We could also add a section about biological weapons, just the theory behind them and possible consequences? Let me know what you think! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the covid-19 public health against economic growth is an excellent example of conflict of interest! I'm not too sure on biological weapons though as I don't believe that is directly constituted as something regarded in economics. -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Spent the weeks researching. I agree with the biological weapons part, we should leave that for now. Also, I realised that the COVID-19 pandemic does not really constitute as history, as its still going on right now. So, instead, I'll be looking at the example of HIV/AIDS and how economists and public health experts collaborated and handled it. Super briefly though!--Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello I am very blind! I just got done adding the real life example of HIV/AIDS to the sandbox. You can now add your bit about the history of their interdisciplinarity. Hope you get on well! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Feminist06! I just read your section. Really interesting! I think that I'll add brief part on the relationship between public health and maybe any significant developments of its interdisciplinary nature to try and put your real life example about AIDS into context of the disciplines! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Feminist06! I have completed my contributions to the public health and economics. I was very interested in my research and got a bit carried away and wrote a little more than a brief introduction. Please read through and adjust however you feel is right! --- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I am very blind. I am indeed greatly impressed by your research and I think there is great coherence between our portions now. It was a delight collaborating with you on this! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I've just added my part to the Economics and Psychology section. I have yet to deal with the citations and do them properly, so I'll make sure to do that very soon. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I added some hyperlinks to keywords that I thought were important under the section - History of Economics as a Discipline because I think it will give the readers a better understanding of specific words mentioned, so if you typed anything under that can you check that the hyperlinks I used are appropriate? If not feel free to delete or remove them! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Aeronautical Engineering
Hello all. Very late in joining the party, so not expecting any replies, don't worry! I've done my history section on the discipline of aeronautical engineering in the time before the advent of the space age. If anyone has any thoughts feel free to let me know, but im not expecting anything, because it is past the original submission deadline. Cheers! -- Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about Reference List(s) Structure
Hello! Do you guys think we should make separate reference lists for each main section, or have all of the references compiled at the end of the page (as normal)? Personally, the former might be more coherent in its structure — thoughts? -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that separate lists is a good idea, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that? Does anyone know? --I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To add the reference list in each section separately, we would have to make a notes / references section under each section like how we make the sections itself (such as by including a number of equals signs before and after 'References'), and then inputting the tag 'sup' in the following brackets:<>, followed by a reference number (such as 1), followed by the tag , followed by the cited reference. This would also include adding the same tag at the place in the main text we are referencing. Overall, I personally believe that citing all of the references at the end of the page would allow it to be coherent for the reader as it would not disrupt the flow of reading, and additionally, as the references are numbered, the references collectively would be in the order of the sections. What are your views? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for letting us know how to do it. But after some thought, I do also agree that it would probably flow better for the reader in terms of coherence as well. So I think we should leave it as it is with all references at the end of the page. Thanks for your comments everyone! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 11:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about formatting, whether or not we need to capitalise things?
Hi everyone, there's an article about Wikipedia naming conventions, and I was wondering whether you guys agree that we should de-capitalise words that are not proper nouns or the first letter in the article? From my knowledge, apart from disciplines that are languages, for example English, French etc. all other disciplines are not considered as proper nouns and thus do not capitalising. Please let me know what you guys think! Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! That's interesting! I had no clue about this convention and had a quick look at the page you sent me and then skimmed through this discussion page at Capitalization in heading. There seems to be a heated debate about the different styles: whether sentence-case rules vs title-case rules should apply to Wikipedia headings; how it is a matter of style preference (American vs British styles have different rules regarding this if I'm not wrong), and even just a matter of aesthetic preference. I'll have to be perfectly honest: I am more than often driven away from pages that do not capitalise the nouns in their headings because aesthetically it doesn't seem professional to me and therefore leads me to quite frankly have the impression that they perhaps lack some form of credibility. (Of course that isn't something I should't be basing their credibility off of, but it is merely the impression I get.) But then again, this is because I also just wasn't aware of such a rule on Wikipedia before your question. Personally, I think I wouldn't de-capitalise our headings for the reasons that I've mentioned and because it is only really a 'convention', not necessarily a rule — and so I don't see too much of a need to follow it. (Hope what I said made sense!) What does everyone else think?


 * (P.S. I should also add that I am mainly talking about de-capitalisation of titles and subheadings.) -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this all makes sense and I agree with you in terms of the intuitively thinking it's more professional feeling!! I guess we can just leave it as it is as long as we are consistent with what we do then all is good. But let's wait and see what everyone else thinks! Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you! I found the conventions thing an interesting read, but if it is not required, I feel like our current formatting is more professional looking and just prefer it for aesthetic purposes. -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I just noticed that there is no consistent capitalisation of the word 'Economics' in the section of the Economics discipline. I am changing it all to capitalised 'Economics' because I think subjects or disciplines are such should be capitalised. Please be more careful next time! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Question on Media
Hello, I was wondering whether we should include images or any media such as diagram representations of information, illustrations, and so on, from Wiki Commons which have a license that allows us to use the image while crediting the original author. What are your thoughts? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely! I believe we should use some media, as that will break up the huge chunks of content and will provide helpful visual cues. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 06:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the both of you! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Hello! I've added images in some sections where I felt would be most valuable for the reader! Please do remove or change them however you'd like. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Structuring of the Whole Page
Hello everyone! Since we have done some restructuring of all of our pages to group like-content together, I was wondering about your thoughts on moving it so that the medicine, public health and lifestyle medicine sections together? -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! That sounds good to me! I guess if we wanted to, we could also group the arts and humanities at the top (History, Economics, Sustainable Architecture and Psychology) at the top and then have (Medicine, Lifestyle Medicine and Public Health) below — that is my proposed order. It's not necessary but I think it would make sense. Let me know what you think! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with the suggestion of grouping them that way. However I was thinking of this order (History, Sustainable Architecture, Economics, Psychology, Life style medicine, Public Health, Medicine) - This is because, Economics includes a section on Psychology and Economics, then it will fall nicely into the Psychology section, while life style medicine includes a section that links to psychology as well and it also has a section that links to public health as well. With this in mind, I would perhaps suggest to change the sequence of the economics section so swap Emergence of Interdisciplinarity: History of Demography and Economics with Emergence of Interdisciplinarity: History of Psychology and Economics, as it follows smoothly. Let me know if you think otherwise. Hope this makes sense! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds good too — I agree with your proposed structure! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yep! I agree with psychology and eocnomics being together since they're both social sciences and because of the reasoning Shaunice34 gave about the content! - I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)