Talk:Sport: Difference between revisions
imported>David Martin No edit summary |
imported>Nancy Sculerati No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I just saw the edit that included the three tennis players as a subcategory of tennis. Do you think this is appropriately placed? If we were to follow this, then there would be literally thousands of players listed on this page. It just seems like it doesn't belong. [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 19:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | I just saw the edit that included the three tennis players as a subcategory of tennis. Do you think this is appropriately placed? If we were to follow this, then there would be literally thousands of players listed on this page. It just seems like it doesn't belong. [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 19:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
I agree. I think it's fine to have a list of sports-which likely will become its own linked article (catalog). But, hard as it is, this article should be a narrative that introduces the topic, like [[Biology]] or [[Literature]].[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:35, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:35, 13 May 2007
I just began a writing on this. I plan on expanding. It's such a broad topic that any comments on a focus for the article would be appreciated. History? Should I list professional sports organizations? Mention of the Olympic games? Pop culture tie in? A lot of places to go. David Martin 20:32, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
I just saw the edit that included the three tennis players as a subcategory of tennis. Do you think this is appropriately placed? If we were to follow this, then there would be literally thousands of players listed on this page. It just seems like it doesn't belong. David Martin 19:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree. I think it's fine to have a list of sports-which likely will become its own linked article (catalog). But, hard as it is, this article should be a narrative that introduces the topic, like Biology or Literature.Nancy Sculerati 19:35, 13 May 2007 (CDT)