CZ Talk:Essentials: Difference between revisions
imported>Todd Coles (rename this page?) |
imported>John Stephenson m (moved CZ Talk:Dozen Essentials to CZ Talk:Essentials: Erm, there aren't a dozen of them...) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Perhaps we should move this page to [[CZ:Essentials]] instead of limiting ourselves to twelve. I'll gladly move it, etc, if that idea has some support. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 21:21, 15 February 2008 (CST) | Perhaps we should move this page to [[CZ:Essentials]] instead of limiting ourselves to twelve. I'll gladly move it, etc, if that idea has some support. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 21:21, 15 February 2008 (CST) | ||
== Still needs to be rewritten == | |||
Some inspiration on how to do it is [http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/worthy_books.html here]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Controversies == | |||
Joe, I find your rewrite a little too soft: "We identify mainstream and non-mainstream views as such and if necessary, we "take a step back" and ''describe'' any controversies fairly, rather than trying to settle them in any way at all. " Settle? Perhaps not. Identify position(s) held by expert(s), versus, for example, popular culture and conspiracy theorists, yes. Sorry, the Men in Black are requiring me to stop writing. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The "settling" part was in there before. I actually don't like it much, but I didn't want to completely rewrite. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Point 6 and linking technical terms == | |||
I am accustomed to linking technical terms at their first usage, if the article doesn't explain them (one of my favorites is "[[geodesic]]"). The policy might want to say something about this practice, pro or con. --[[User:T. J. Frazier|T. J. Frazier]] 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I think this is custom here already, so pro. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:45, 21 April 2012
This needs to be rewritten. The essentials have changed!!! --Larry Sanger 12:13, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps we should move this page to CZ:Essentials instead of limiting ourselves to twelve. I'll gladly move it, etc, if that idea has some support. --Todd Coles 21:21, 15 February 2008 (CST)
Still needs to be rewritten
Some inspiration on how to do it is here. --Daniel Mietchen 16:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversies
Joe, I find your rewrite a little too soft: "We identify mainstream and non-mainstream views as such and if necessary, we "take a step back" and describe any controversies fairly, rather than trying to settle them in any way at all. " Settle? Perhaps not. Identify position(s) held by expert(s), versus, for example, popular culture and conspiracy theorists, yes. Sorry, the Men in Black are requiring me to stop writing. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- The "settling" part was in there before. I actually don't like it much, but I didn't want to completely rewrite. --Joe Quick 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Point 6 and linking technical terms
I am accustomed to linking technical terms at their first usage, if the article doesn't explain them (one of my favorites is "geodesic"). The policy might want to say something about this practice, pro or con. --T. J. Frazier 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is custom here already, so pro. --Daniel Mietchen 22:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)