Talk:Time: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson (move to Time (science)?) |
imported>Derek Harkness (→Move) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Move== | ==Move== | ||
Following the advice on [[CZ:List of words with multiple uses]] and the recent move of [[Energy]] to [[Energy (science)]], I suggest this we follow that example and move it to [[Time (science)]]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 04:24, 2 June 2008 (CDT) | Following the advice on [[CZ:List of words with multiple uses]] and the recent move of [[Energy]] to [[Energy (science)]], I suggest this we follow that example and move it to [[Time (science)]]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 04:24, 2 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
:[[Energy (science)]] is probably going to be split into more targeted articles (see discussion on its talk page), and I would expect a similar development for [[Time (science)]], so [[Time (physics)]] might be a better option. Perhaps, as with [[Language]], there could also be [[Time (general)]]. In any case, a move seems necessary. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 04:38, 2 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
::I have to say no. In Wikipedia there is a tendency to split articles into lots of little sub headers and sub sub headers. When we started Citizendium, where was a strong oppinion that such subdivision of articles was bad. Our article mechanics says me should make articles with cohesion, that flow and read easily. Now I see that we are not satisfied with sub headers, we have to make completely separate articles. | |||
::I think we can have one article called 'Time' that covers all the aspects, historical, cultural, scientific and more without any problem. The only things you need to disambiguate with are pop culture things like [[Time (Magazine)]]. Lets have a single article that tells the reader, a person who has know knowledge of time, what time is. Fully explaining all the aspects of time in a well written cohesive manner rather than a set of incohesive sub sections, or worse, sub articles that fail to produce a ''comprehensive'' coverage of the subject. [[User:Derek Harkness|Derek Harkness]] 10:33, 2 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:33, 2 June 2008
Move
Following the advice on CZ:List of words with multiple uses and the recent move of Energy to Energy (science), I suggest this we follow that example and move it to Time (science). John Stephenson 04:24, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
- Energy (science) is probably going to be split into more targeted articles (see discussion on its talk page), and I would expect a similar development for Time (science), so Time (physics) might be a better option. Perhaps, as with Language, there could also be Time (general). In any case, a move seems necessary. -- Daniel Mietchen 04:38, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
- I have to say no. In Wikipedia there is a tendency to split articles into lots of little sub headers and sub sub headers. When we started Citizendium, where was a strong oppinion that such subdivision of articles was bad. Our article mechanics says me should make articles with cohesion, that flow and read easily. Now I see that we are not satisfied with sub headers, we have to make completely separate articles.
- I think we can have one article called 'Time' that covers all the aspects, historical, cultural, scientific and more without any problem. The only things you need to disambiguate with are pop culture things like Time (Magazine). Lets have a single article that tells the reader, a person who has know knowledge of time, what time is. Fully explaining all the aspects of time in a well written cohesive manner rather than a set of incohesive sub sections, or worse, sub articles that fail to produce a comprehensive coverage of the subject. Derek Harkness 10:33, 2 June 2008 (CDT)