Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 dopwn any trivial thging ever associated with a word as a legitimate part of an article. 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 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 13:29, 2 June 2007


Article Checklist for "Bucephalus"
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)