Talk:History of the kilt: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert W King
imported>James F. Perry
(→‎Division of the ''kilt'' articles group: length of current article)
Line 27: Line 27:
::I'm not convinced, especially since this article is currently fairly short and, especially if the excessive sectioning were removed, would fit quite nicely in [[kilt]], which is not very long at all. I can see that [[kilt accessories]] is large enough that it should really be removed to its own article. But, since you're clearly still working on the set of articles, I'll wait and see what everything looks like at the end. [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 10:48, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
::I'm not convinced, especially since this article is currently fairly short and, especially if the excessive sectioning were removed, would fit quite nicely in [[kilt]], which is not very long at all. I can see that [[kilt accessories]] is large enough that it should really be removed to its own article. But, since you're clearly still working on the set of articles, I'll wait and see what everything looks like at the end. [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 10:48, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
:::I have to agree with Mr. J. Flippin about this article.  I think it's a logical fallicy to say that "''A'' because of ''a'' means ''X'' because of ''x''".  In the case of kilt, it really makes no sense to seperate the history of it from the item itself, as one of the reasons why someone might research the kilt is to find out it's origins.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:52, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
:::I have to agree with Mr. J. Flippin about this article.  I think it's a logical fallicy to say that "''A'' because of ''a'' means ''X'' because of ''x''".  In the case of kilt, it really makes no sense to seperate the history of it from the item itself, as one of the reasons why someone might research the kilt is to find out it's origins.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:52, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
:I would estimate that this article, in its current state,is about 20 - 25% complete. I did not mean to imply that because ''Scotland'' and ''history of Scotland'' are two separate articles, then the analogues of ''kilt'' must be treated similarly, only that there is no ''logical'' reason why they ought to be treated together. It is not a matter of logic, but of what would be most useful to the users of the material. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 12:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:25, 20 June 2007


Article Checklist for "History of the kilt"
Workgroup category or categories Anthropology Workgroup, History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by James F. Perry 16:47, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Division of the kilt articles group

Is there a particular reason this information does not belong in kilt? James A. Flippin 16:54, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

The question regarding the division of information on a given subject into separate articles is not one which can be decided a priori on purely theoretic grounds. And while there is no doubt that kilt and history of the kilt are both concerned with the same general subject, so to are Scotland and history of Scotland. In both cases, the two articles could be combined into a single article, or they could be treated separately.
Length is one consideration, especially in the case of the Scotland articles. The plan of the work related to kilts is for there to be four basic articles: kilt, kilt variants, kilt accessories, and history of the kilt. Combined, they could easily equal or exceed 10000 words. And there is really no good reason, if one is to combine kilt with the history article, to stop there and not continue with the other two.
But the four articles seem to treat of four distinct topics within the same overall theme, and that is strong justification for the proposed division. At Highland games events, questions about the kilt can and do fall rather neatly into these four main categories, that is; 1) what is a kilt? 2) where did it originate? 3) what is worn with it? and 4) what about these other garments? are they kilts? and how do they differ from the Scottish kilt?
So the two main reasons are, on the one hand, the question of length, and, on the other, the fact that questions concerning the kilt can be rather neatly categorized into one of the above four topic areas.
James F. Perry 10:05, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm not convinced, especially since this article is currently fairly short and, especially if the excessive sectioning were removed, would fit quite nicely in kilt, which is not very long at all. I can see that kilt accessories is large enough that it should really be removed to its own article. But, since you're clearly still working on the set of articles, I'll wait and see what everything looks like at the end. James A. Flippin 10:48, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I have to agree with Mr. J. Flippin about this article. I think it's a logical fallicy to say that "A because of a means X because of x". In the case of kilt, it really makes no sense to seperate the history of it from the item itself, as one of the reasons why someone might research the kilt is to find out it's origins. --Robert W King 10:52, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I would estimate that this article, in its current state,is about 20 - 25% complete. I did not mean to imply that because Scotland and history of Scotland are two separate articles, then the analogues of kilt must be treated similarly, only that there is no logical reason why they ought to be treated together. It is not a matter of logic, but of what would be most useful to the users of the material. James F. Perry 12:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)