Talk:Mind map/Archives/2020

Uses
The third paragraph is a bit confusing. Is it being implied that mind mapping can be used to help in internet research? Also, the reference listed does not lead to any specific article. Mckaymclelland (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio violation
The whole article is a copyvio of from "Educational Techniques and Methodology" By Sage Mckinney. I'm just figuring out which bits to leave, and will delete the offending stuff asap, unless somebody beats me to it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked, and confused myself. I've asked an expert to cast an eye. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I dont know who copied whom. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , (Diannaa isn't around right now but I'm also a copyright expert) This was very likely copied from us. The book was published in November 2018, and looking at the articles history around that time, I'm not seeing where it could have been inserted. And look at the sections surrounding the Mind map entry in the book; it's entries on Flip chart and Slate (writing) are identical to our articles. Unless someone somehow found an unpublished version of the book and went around pasting everything they could find from it into wikipedia, it looks like the book is actually the copyright violation, since it doesn't seem to attribute us. And to think it's being sold for $142 (according to google books); what a scam! Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 17:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking and reaching a much firmer conclusion than I had done. I could see our article text predates publication of the book, so I suppose we just leave it. I think it's pretty scrappy, but I dont have the skillz to improve it. I may still look carefully at the unsourced portions again. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

unsourced tosh
There were three sources referenced in the Usage section. I do not understand the change summary. See this diff —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who removed that section. Biogeographist (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * a misclick. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Further reading removal
The citation is to an article that is highly cited by others in articles about mind mapping. While i do not have access to the original, a cursory examination of its use as a citation suggests it is on topic and pf interest to writers about learning and mind maps. I do not understand edit summary. See this diff —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the referenced article before I removed it. It is not about mind maps. It does not mention mind maps. It is about concept maps and vee diagrams in education. It does not belong in this article. Biogeographist (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Not having the article myself I explored its citation. So many of those included mind mapping. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Gallery
The section was previously removed as "indiscriminate", but I have restored it with a new explanation of its purpose: to help people identify the structure of mind maps despite superficial stylistic differences in appearance. This is in line with similar sections in many other articles. Here is an excess of examples in other articles (once I started looking, I became fascinated by the variety):



Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)