Talk:Jörmungandr: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
trivial annoyance |
Biokinetica (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I said in an edit summary that the trivia section was getting out of hand and removed the random collection of references found there. They are back, with the edit summary ''Says you; most pop culture pages list and all their examples until they warrant their own article.'' Please read [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]. A bullet point list of random references can never warrant a wikipedia article. Also, the section as it now stands does not comply with [[WP:MoS#Bulleted lists|basic style guidelines]] which mandate that we write our articles as coherent text. [[User:Edinborgarstefan|Stefán]] 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
I said in an edit summary that the trivia section was getting out of hand and removed the random collection of references found there. They are back, with the edit summary ''Says you; most pop culture pages list and all their examples until they warrant their own article.'' Please read [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]. A bullet point list of random references can never warrant a wikipedia article. Also, the section as it now stands does not comply with [[WP:MoS#Bulleted lists|basic style guidelines]] which mandate that we write our articles as coherent text. [[User:Edinborgarstefan|Stefán]] 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Is that so? What would you say to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith_in_popular_culture this page], that came as a product of this very same argument over another figure from myth? Furthermore, of course this isn't indiscriminate; just because you were never aware of all these references doesn't mean they're suddenly "random". By half-assing the section with some sentance that says, 'there's stuff in animé and comics, 'n junk', you're cheating others out of knowing just how the name is used, and purhaps, why. Virtually all the pop culture sections in wiki do this so nobody is left in the dark - something an encyclopedia should never do. -[[User:Biokinetica|Biokinetica]] 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:42, 30 March 2007
 | Mythology Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Trivia section
I said in an edit summary that the trivia section was getting out of hand and removed the random collection of references found there. They are back, with the edit summary Says you; most pop culture pages list and all their examples until they warrant their own article. Please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A bullet point list of random references can never warrant a wikipedia article. Also, the section as it now stands does not comply with basic style guidelines which mandate that we write our articles as coherent text. Stefán 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is that so? What would you say to this page, that came as a product of this very same argument over another figure from myth? Furthermore, of course this isn't indiscriminate; just because you were never aware of all these references doesn't mean they're suddenly "random". By half-assing the section with some sentance that says, 'there's stuff in animé and comics, 'n junk', you're cheating others out of knowing just how the name is used, and purhaps, why. Virtually all the pop culture sections in wiki do this so nobody is left in the dark - something an encyclopedia should never do. -Biokinetica 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)