Talk:Sport: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati No edit summary |
imported>Hayford Peirce (tennis subcategory) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::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) | ::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) | ||
:::I appreciate your concerns and thought about them before doing it. However, '''at the moment''' there is almost literally nothing in CZ about sports and any of the more prominent athletes. Until I put in a long article about tennis a couple of days ago, there was only a single brief paragraph about it. Right now I think it's useful for new visitors to these pages to be able to click on a header such as Sports (on the Home page) and then see that there actually '''is''' some content here. For instance, I think it would be useful for the baseball Header to have Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Bonds, etc. beneath it. Maybe when the tennis list reaches 20 or 30 or 40 or some other number the listing should be discontinued. In the meantime I don't see that it's hurting anything and may actually be useful.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:41, 13 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 19:41, 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)
- I appreciate your concerns and thought about them before doing it. However, at the moment there is almost literally nothing in CZ about sports and any of the more prominent athletes. Until I put in a long article about tennis a couple of days ago, there was only a single brief paragraph about it. Right now I think it's useful for new visitors to these pages to be able to click on a header such as Sports (on the Home page) and then see that there actually is some content here. For instance, I think it would be useful for the baseball Header to have Cobb, Ruth, Mays, Bonds, etc. beneath it. Maybe when the tennis list reaches 20 or 30 or 40 or some other number the listing should be discontinued. In the meantime I don't see that it's hurting anything and may actually be useful.... Hayford Peirce 19:41, 13 May 2007 (CDT)