Disambiguation | ||||
|
Currently aqueduct just points at this page. But surely the primary topic is a bridge or viaduct over a gap or valley i.e. aqueduct (bridge)? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be posted here on Talk:Aqueduct (watercourse) but I'll do it here as most people will still have this on their watchlist.
The above named article needs attention due to the splitting of the aqueduct articles. There's already confusion on the talk page as to the coverage of the article. Anyone care to make a proposal? Chris55 ( talk) 15:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Incase this gets deleted again, here's the water-related things that need sorting/out shuffling. The arrangement is arbitrary, there are probably better ways of structuring this, and those can be hopefully sorted out in time.
Are there any that I've missed? — Sladen ( talk) 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the soup that is knowledge exchange I am prepared to accept inconsistencies where they aid the exchange of information. Having aquaduct as a page that expands on the scope the word and then the sub-pages to explore in detail each instance seems to be a valid organisation of this topic, for this example and in this case where the term has both a history and a relevant current existence. For example - Rill has both a natural and an artificial (man-made) definition. Having the natural (fluvial) described in one page and and the artificial (aqueduct) somewhere else reduces understanding in defense of the regimented and pedantic. Not only that but it would incur a maintenance burden as there will always be someone new (i.e. me) who comes in, sees the missing information and tries to add it. Stellar ( talk) 00:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aqueduct (water supply) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Currently aqueduct just points at this page. But surely the primary topic is a bridge or viaduct over a gap or valley i.e. aqueduct (bridge)? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be posted here on Talk:Aqueduct (watercourse) but I'll do it here as most people will still have this on their watchlist.
The above named article needs attention due to the splitting of the aqueduct articles. There's already confusion on the talk page as to the coverage of the article. Anyone care to make a proposal? Chris55 ( talk) 15:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Incase this gets deleted again, here's the water-related things that need sorting/out shuffling. The arrangement is arbitrary, there are probably better ways of structuring this, and those can be hopefully sorted out in time.
Are there any that I've missed? — Sladen ( talk) 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In the soup that is knowledge exchange I am prepared to accept inconsistencies where they aid the exchange of information. Having aquaduct as a page that expands on the scope the word and then the sub-pages to explore in detail each instance seems to be a valid organisation of this topic, for this example and in this case where the term has both a history and a relevant current existence. For example - Rill has both a natural and an artificial (man-made) definition. Having the natural (fluvial) described in one page and and the artificial (aqueduct) somewhere else reduces understanding in defense of the regimented and pedantic. Not only that but it would incur a maintenance burden as there will always be someone new (i.e. me) who comes in, sees the missing information and tries to add it. Stellar ( talk) 00:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aqueduct (water supply) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)