Talk:Methodology

Format
Hi Pat. What is your goal in formatting Methodology so that each methodology is a section? Does this not perhaps create more page clutter than utility? The content here is basically a list of methodology names (linked to pages about same) + brief one line definitions. Bullet list works well for this. Before I revert your edit and plunge forward unto the brink, are you happy with how the page looks now? If so, please explain. Your intrepid collaborator all in white with keyboard at the ready, --Roger (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2013 (CDT)
 * Greetings. The method behind my apparent madness is precisely to reduce the clutter that the page suffered from. Paraphrasing dear Ol' Blue Eyes, by doing it my way, the TOC neatly sets out each item as an easily reachable unit which, hopefully, and over time, can be developed into summat more meaningful than a mere collection of one-liners. I think a topic as important as this should be developed further and I reckon it looks more inviting for the teeming millions© out there to contribute with wot they know. Regs., --Technopat (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2013 (CDT) PS. White satin? --Technopat (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2013 (CDT)
 * You/We may need to be careful about not simply duplicating what we have at Approach, method and strategy. A case could be made for merging the two or for reverting this page to its previous status or for just pontificating about methodology in general on this one.  Also, I'm not sure that section headers as links is good wiki form.--Bob M (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2013 (CDT)
 * Section header links are a definite no-no (which is why I started modifying 'em). As for merging, in principle, but without having read through either of them in any great detail, I think they should be separate, but obviously complementary, at least to a certain degree. Re. reverting to previous status, if by that you mean, I reckon it's def. a more cluttered version. --Technopat (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2013 (CDT)
 * I agree with Bob's notion: merge the two. And I agree with Pat, this material is core. It is also extensive and potentially confusing material. I think Approach, method and strategy is a good intro to it. Maybe merge the specific items in Methodology into that. Methodology could remain as a definition page, defining only methodology and linking to Approach, method and strategy and any other appropriate pages for further reading. --Roger (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2013 (CDT)
 * My only concern with the merging of text pages is that, as in real-life company mergers, it leads to oversize, much duplication and redundancy, i.e. I don't mind reading about similar stuff on two different article pages, but I find it irritating, as in "who the hell is editing this stuff" when I come across it twice on the same page. That, and the need to keep text on screens down to screenbite size. What with all that glare, long paragraphs of text are unpleasant things for the eyes to handle. Stop me if I've mentioned this one before, but I know folk doing scientific research into that, and the results so far are categorical, in that the brain just doesn't take in (as in retain) the same amount of info from the screen as from the printed page... Regs., --Technopat (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2013 (CDT)