CZ:Proposals/Should history articles be named with general terms first?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger (New page: == The issue == ''Elaborate the issue here. It is an issue (it takes the form of a question), not a proposal, properly speaking.'' == Discussion == *I think most people would type in [[...) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (adding my own 2 cents worth) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Questions:''' are we limiting this discussion to places, like [[History of France]], or does it also extend to things, like [[History of the kilt]]? If yes, why? Why should we limit this to the history workgroup? Why not make one rule for the whole of Citizendium? Would people actually search for [[Kilt, history]] or [[History of the kilt]]? And why should we limit ourselves to the old-fashioned way of keeping tab of books in a library, where people search for books in little drawers of cards by the first word according to the Dewey Decimal system? Isn't this an internet site? Don't we have redirects? --[[User:Christian Liem|Christian Liem]] 20:42, 9 February 2008 (CST) | *'''Questions:''' are we limiting this discussion to places, like [[History of France]], or does it also extend to things, like [[History of the kilt]]? If yes, why? Why should we limit this to the history workgroup? Why not make one rule for the whole of Citizendium? Would people actually search for [[Kilt, history]] or [[History of the kilt]]? And why should we limit ourselves to the old-fashioned way of keeping tab of books in a library, where people search for books in little drawers of cards by the first word according to the Dewey Decimal system? Isn't this an internet site? Don't we have redirects? --[[User:Christian Liem|Christian Liem]] 20:42, 9 February 2008 (CST) | ||
:Well, if I wanted a history of the kilt, I'd probably just type in 'kilt' & be happy if there were immediately visible a link to 'history of the kilt', or, for that matter 'kilt, history'. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST) | :Well, if I wanted a history of the kilt, I'd probably just type in 'kilt' & be happy if there were immediately visible a link to 'history of the kilt', or, for that matter 'kilt, history'. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST) | ||
::I agree in the sense that many things have a "History Of" intinsically built into them, so to speak. Or they should. [[Baseball]], for instance, ought to have a historical development section. I know (and Ro will agree, since he worked on it also) that [[Tennis]] has a long historical section. So I don't think we want separate articles like [[History of baseball]], or [[Baseball, the history of]], etc. etc. The word "history" ought to be confined, in my opinion, to *real* history, such as [[History of France]], or [[France, history of]], or [[France, the history of]]. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:26, 11 February 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 12:26, 11 February 2008
The issue
Elaborate the issue here. It is an issue (it takes the form of a question), not a proposal, properly speaking.
Discussion
- I think most people would type in History of France, so that should be the style. Of course they could also go to France first, and there would be the required link. Ro Thorpe 14:24, 9 February 2008 (CST) - And so it is. As for 'French history', I think most people would not choose it, a bit informal. Ro Thorpe 14:27, 9 February 2008 (CST)
- Questions: are we limiting this discussion to places, like History of France, or does it also extend to things, like History of the kilt? If yes, why? Why should we limit this to the history workgroup? Why not make one rule for the whole of Citizendium? Would people actually search for Kilt, history or History of the kilt? And why should we limit ourselves to the old-fashioned way of keeping tab of books in a library, where people search for books in little drawers of cards by the first word according to the Dewey Decimal system? Isn't this an internet site? Don't we have redirects? --Christian Liem 20:42, 9 February 2008 (CST)
- Well, if I wanted a history of the kilt, I'd probably just type in 'kilt' & be happy if there were immediately visible a link to 'history of the kilt', or, for that matter 'kilt, history'. Ro Thorpe 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST)
- I agree in the sense that many things have a "History Of" intinsically built into them, so to speak. Or they should. Baseball, for instance, ought to have a historical development section. I know (and Ro will agree, since he worked on it also) that Tennis has a long historical section. So I don't think we want separate articles like History of baseball, or Baseball, the history of, etc. etc. The word "history" ought to be confined, in my opinion, to *real* history, such as History of France, or France, history of, or France, the history of. Hayford Peirce 11:26, 11 February 2008 (CST)