Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati
No edit summary
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Bucephalus
|                cat1 = Classics
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check =
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 10:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
}}


Russell- I would like to get rid of "other occurrence" of word bucephalus. From the times I have looked things up on wikipedia, there seems to be an accepted convention there of putting down any trivial thing ever associated with a word as a legitimate part of an article and not to denigrate the associated thingsm, they may be important but they have nothing to do with actual subject of the article except very very peripherally. It think that if we are going to have trivia sections that may be ok- but it should be a separate article. There could be a disambiguation page. I added the archtypical section here, because, although I think that it relates to the legend/history. These articles serbe as p[recedents- as jus as we do not include "The dog in poular culture" "Dogs in Fiction" in the "Dog" article, I do not think that these other sections -upon reflection, belong here. Can you think of a way to salvage the work laying it out differently in articles? Respectfuly, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Russell- I would like to get rid of "other occurrence" of word Bucephalus. From the times I have looked things up on Wikipedia, there seems to be an accepted convention there of putting down any trivial thing ever associated with a word as a legitimate part of an article - and not to denigrate the associated things as trivia, they may also be important but they have nothing to do with actual subject of the article except very, very peripherally. I think that if we are going to have trivia sections that may be ok- but it should be a separate article. There could be a disambiguation page. I added the archetypical section here, because I think that it relates to the legend/history. These articles serve as precedents- and just as we do not include "The dog in popular culture", "Dogs in Fiction" in the "Dog" article, I do not think that these other sections -upon reflection, belong here. Can you think of a way to salvage the work laying it out differently in articles? Respectfuly, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
:Well, alright, I'll take out Anthony Burgess's turtle -- but the warship name seems relevant (a name chosen for its mythological associations). [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 13:45, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
I ''love'' Anthony Burgess. Why not start an article on him and include his turtle? :-) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:24, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
Pronunciation please? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
::1 Burgess, coming up! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 21:18, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 15:45, 25 September 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  A famed horse belonging to Alexander the Great. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Classics [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

Russell- I would like to get rid of "other occurrence" of word Bucephalus. From the times I have looked things up on Wikipedia, there seems to be an accepted convention there of putting down any trivial thing ever associated with a word as a legitimate part of an article - and not to denigrate the associated things as trivia, they may also be important but they have nothing to do with actual subject of the article except very, very peripherally. I think that if we are going to have trivia sections that may be ok- but it should be a separate article. There could be a disambiguation page. I added the archetypical section here, because I think that it relates to the legend/history. These articles serve as precedents- and just as we do not include "The dog in popular culture", "Dogs in Fiction" in the "Dog" article, I do not think that these other sections -upon reflection, belong here. Can you think of a way to salvage the work laying it out differently in articles? Respectfuly, Nancy Sculerati 13:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, alright, I'll take out Anthony Burgess's turtle -- but the warship name seems relevant (a name chosen for its mythological associations). Russell Potter 13:45, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I love Anthony Burgess. Why not start an article on him and include his turtle? :-) Nancy Sculerati 14:24, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Pronunciation please? --Larry Sanger 16:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

1 Burgess, coming up! Russell Potter 21:18, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Bucephalus&oldid=28024"