Talk:Australia, history: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Denis Cavanagh
No edit summary
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


I believe it is better to have articles as X, history etc. There is no general agreement on this, but it has been the general practise by the people who do most of the history articles around here. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 13:54, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
I believe it is better to have articles as X, history etc. There is no general agreement on this, but it has been the general practise by the people who do most of the history articles around here. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 13:54, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
:I don't have a strong view on this, but I do feel that we are not using clusters sufficiently. As the history of Australia is clearly a subset of Australia, (as with all other country histories) it seems to make more sense to link the articles together in one cluster. Anyway, I will leave it to the authors of such articles to decide. My only strong comment is that we shoujld not have replicated content, so the detailed history in the article "Australia" needs to be deleted and summarised there. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 14:47, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 13:47, 20 August 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Definition [?]
 Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  history [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  Australian English
To do.

Metadata here


I've categorised this as a stub, given that it's really just a copy and paste from the main Australia article. (And if that's a bit naughty, please let me know and I'll set about fixing it!)

There's heaps of work to be done on this, obviously, but I felt it was probably a good idea to get something in here that others (and I) can work on.

Come on Aussies and Aussie-philes! Let's get stuck in!

David H. Barrett

It should be classed as a developing article: stubs are very very short. If it is already included in the Australia article, why do we need a separate article? I would be more inclined to cut the substantial text from the Australia article (replacing it with a synopsis) and put a subpage History in the cluster there. It is better to avoid titles like "X. history" or "Y, geography" although they are permitted on CZ.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:51, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

I believe it is better to have articles as X, history etc. There is no general agreement on this, but it has been the general practise by the people who do most of the history articles around here. Denis Cavanagh 13:54, 20 August 2008 (CDT)

I don't have a strong view on this, but I do feel that we are not using clusters sufficiently. As the history of Australia is clearly a subset of Australia, (as with all other country histories) it seems to make more sense to link the articles together in one cluster. Anyway, I will leave it to the authors of such articles to decide. My only strong comment is that we shoujld not have replicated content, so the detailed history in the article "Australia" needs to be deleted and summarised there. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:47, 20 August 2008 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Australia,_history&oldid=522216"