Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati No edit summary |
imported>Nancy Sculerati No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
}} | }} | ||
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 | 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) |
Revision as of 12:29, 2 June 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Classics Workgroup [Please add or review categories] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Russell Potter 10:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
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, Nancy Sculerati 13:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- Classics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Classics Advanced Articles
- Classics Nonstub Articles
- Classics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Classics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Classics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Classics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Classics External Articles
- Classics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Classics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup