Talk:Bucephalus: Difference between revisions
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
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)
- Classics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Classics Advanced Articles
- Classics Nonstub Articles
- Classics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Classics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Classics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Classics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Classics External Articles
- Classics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Classics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup