Talk:Plate tectonics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nereo Preto (Core Article) |
(proposed changes to this article: two of them) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
This article is considered a top priority for the Earth Sciences. If this stub could be expanded to at least 250 words of good content, this would be great and worth 10 points! See [[CZ:Core Articles/Natural Sciences]] --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 07:26, 15 November 2007 (CST) | This article is considered a top priority for the Earth Sciences. If this stub could be expanded to at least 250 words of good content, this would be great and worth 10 points! See [[CZ:Core Articles/Natural Sciences]] --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 07:26, 15 November 2007 (CST) | ||
:Hmmm. I greatly enjoyed this topic during undergrad. As this matures, someone remind me to create some animated GIFS. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:42, 21 November 2007 (CST) | |||
: Yes, and at least an entire paragraph could be added about the scientific controversy that developed in probably the 1960s regarding this theory ...this was extremely controversial and could damage an academics reputation seriously if they subscribes to it. | |||
:I am also questioning the common practice of making links to articles that don't exist in online encyclopedias. It's distracting, and in my opinion a practice that needs to go away. If you actually have an article to link to, then you make the wikilink. My two cents, [[User:Jack S. Byrom|Jack S. Byrom]] ([[User talk:Jack S. Byrom|talk]]) 22:01, 27 February 2023 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:01, 27 February 2023
This article is considered a top priority for the Earth Sciences. If this stub could be expanded to at least 250 words of good content, this would be great and worth 10 points! See CZ:Core Articles/Natural Sciences --Nereo Preto 07:26, 15 November 2007 (CST)
- Hmmm. I greatly enjoyed this topic during undergrad. As this matures, someone remind me to create some animated GIFS. Stephen Ewen 02:42, 21 November 2007 (CST)
- Yes, and at least an entire paragraph could be added about the scientific controversy that developed in probably the 1960s regarding this theory ...this was extremely controversial and could damage an academics reputation seriously if they subscribes to it.
- I am also questioning the common practice of making links to articles that don't exist in online encyclopedias. It's distracting, and in my opinion a practice that needs to go away. If you actually have an article to link to, then you make the wikilink. My two cents, Jack S. Byrom (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2023 (CST)