Talk:Biology/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (Missing links) |
imported>DavidGoodman (fields list) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
However, there is one problem, that anyone (not just you) could help with. It is that there are many links from the original biology article that no longer exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pages linked-to are orphans, but what it does mean is that there is no longer such an easy way into those topics from the article. What I suggest, then, if we completely scrap an old article, is that we keep a list of old links at the bottom of the article, and make sure they are incorporated into the article as appropriate. (Of course, ''some'' links probably don't need to appear anywhere on the page at all. But the names of subdisciplines, yes.) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:40, 1 November 2006 (CST) | However, there is one problem, that anyone (not just you) could help with. It is that there are many links from the original biology article that no longer exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pages linked-to are orphans, but what it does mean is that there is no longer such an easy way into those topics from the article. What I suggest, then, if we completely scrap an old article, is that we keep a list of old links at the bottom of the article, and make sure they are incorporated into the article as appropriate. (Of course, ''some'' links probably don't need to appear anywhere on the page at all. But the names of subdisciplines, yes.) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:40, 1 November 2006 (CST) | ||
==Fields list== | |||
I'd like to comment, but I do not know how far developed you consider this to be. Your list of fields is partial, but is it more helpful to contribute more now or to wait until you have done s--in what will undoubtedly be a more systematic way?20:47, 2 November 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 20:47, 2 November 2006
Dr. Sculerati--that's quite bold, to simply dive in and rewrite the thing from scratch. I like it!
However, there is one problem, that anyone (not just you) could help with. It is that there are many links from the original biology article that no longer exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pages linked-to are orphans, but what it does mean is that there is no longer such an easy way into those topics from the article. What I suggest, then, if we completely scrap an old article, is that we keep a list of old links at the bottom of the article, and make sure they are incorporated into the article as appropriate. (Of course, some links probably don't need to appear anywhere on the page at all. But the names of subdisciplines, yes.) --Larry Sanger 02:40, 1 November 2006 (CST)
Fields list
I'd like to comment, but I do not know how far developed you consider this to be. Your list of fields is partial, but is it more helpful to contribute more now or to wait until you have done s--in what will undoubtedly be a more systematic way?20:47, 2 November 2006 (CST)