Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell Potter mNo edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
| | |||
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
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)