Talk:Gideon's Trumpet (disambiguation): Difference between revisions
imported>K kay shearin (okay) |
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Then I suppose my mistake was not making the article "List of things named Gideon's Trumpet," because I certainly don't expect there ever to be an article about the blog, but I am still of the opinion that someone who looks up "Gideon's Trumpet" in this encyclopedia should find <u>something</u> about the blog, because that may be what they're looking for. Frankly, I doubt there will ever be articles about several of these items, but I did expect someone to put in links to articles on the Bible, Gideon, and maybe Christianity, Abiezer, and/or Midianites. After having so many brackets removed from what I wrote because the articles they linked to didn't exist yet, I've recognized that I'm never going to understand the philosophy controlling this matter (and that I don't care that I don't get it), so I'm now concentrating on what I do well, which is research and writing, and whatever y'all do to fit my work into the framework is fine with me. So please consider this an explanation, not an argument or protest. -- [[User:K kay shearin|k. kay]] 21:16, 4 November 2007 (CST) | Then I suppose my mistake was not making the article "List of things named Gideon's Trumpet," because I certainly don't expect there ever to be an article about the blog, but I am still of the opinion that someone who looks up "Gideon's Trumpet" in this encyclopedia should find <u>something</u> about the blog, because that may be what they're looking for. Frankly, I doubt there will ever be articles about several of these items, but I did expect someone to put in links to articles on the Bible, Gideon, and maybe Christianity, Abiezer, and/or Midianites. After having so many brackets removed from what I wrote because the articles they linked to didn't exist yet, I've recognized that I'm never going to understand the philosophy controlling this matter (and that I don't care that I don't get it), so I'm now concentrating on what I do well, which is research and writing, and whatever y'all do to fit my work into the framework is fine with me. So please consider this an explanation, not an argument or protest. -- [[User:K kay shearin|k. kay]] 21:16, 4 November 2007 (CST) | ||
:Just weighing in as an outside observer, I want to make notice of two things: | |||
*1. Making an article that references a blog would at most probably be a stub and never a full fledged article, because probably keeping up with every single instance and history of a blog would be a blog in itself, so I can see it from that point | |||
*2. Having an external reference to the blog might (albeit very minutely) allow one to construe that we are a link-repository, although arguments can be made for and against that seeing as we do make referencial links to outside sites in the context of an article and what the line is can be hard to define. | |||
:Although I don't see anything wrong with creating links to articles that didn't exist yet--is that a CZ policy I don't know of? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 21:21, 4 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 21:21, 4 November 2007
Re the "Gideon's Trumpet" blog: it's unlikely we will have articles about every blog; that's simply unmaintainable, and it's highly questionable it ever will be. --Larry Sanger 05:58, 4 November 2007 (CST)
Then I suppose my mistake was not making the article "List of things named Gideon's Trumpet," because I certainly don't expect there ever to be an article about the blog, but I am still of the opinion that someone who looks up "Gideon's Trumpet" in this encyclopedia should find something about the blog, because that may be what they're looking for. Frankly, I doubt there will ever be articles about several of these items, but I did expect someone to put in links to articles on the Bible, Gideon, and maybe Christianity, Abiezer, and/or Midianites. After having so many brackets removed from what I wrote because the articles they linked to didn't exist yet, I've recognized that I'm never going to understand the philosophy controlling this matter (and that I don't care that I don't get it), so I'm now concentrating on what I do well, which is research and writing, and whatever y'all do to fit my work into the framework is fine with me. So please consider this an explanation, not an argument or protest. -- k. kay 21:16, 4 November 2007 (CST)
- Just weighing in as an outside observer, I want to make notice of two things:
- 1. Making an article that references a blog would at most probably be a stub and never a full fledged article, because probably keeping up with every single instance and history of a blog would be a blog in itself, so I can see it from that point
- 2. Having an external reference to the blog might (albeit very minutely) allow one to construe that we are a link-repository, although arguments can be made for and against that seeing as we do make referencial links to outside sites in the context of an article and what the line is can be hard to define.
- Although I don't see anything wrong with creating links to articles that didn't exist yet--is that a CZ policy I don't know of? --Robert W King 21:21, 4 November 2007 (CST)