Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Russell Potter
No edit summary
imported>Nancy Sculerati
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
|                  by = [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 10:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
|                  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 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)

Revision as of 13:28, 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 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, Nancy Sculerati 13:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)