This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article could be re-ordered along the lines of the article classical. To give more of an overview and more meaningful groupings of uses. Yaris678 ( talk) 12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A distinct lack of references here, and fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Hence minor rewrite of intro. ProfDEH ( talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. What is this page is trying to do? It's not really disambiguation because the various things listed are not particularly likely to be confused with each other. It doesn't really succeed in defining the word by giving examples either. The statement "Something that is classical is a classic" seems to me completely wrong and misleading, a bad start to the article. Is there anytthing to support it? ProfDEH ( talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue I have with the recent changes is that disam pages SHOULD be basically list pages. They are not meant to be "regular" type pages. They are meant to be pages where you can quickly see which link you want. So the recent changes are ok but if kept, then this isn't really a disam page anymore and shouldn't be listed as one. Just my 2 cents. -- User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I gave some background.
This page was a disambiguation page. [1]
I noted that the way the links were grouped didn’t seem to make much sense, so I re-grouped the links and added some text at the start of each group. [2]
ProfDEH didn’t like the text I added and decided to write his own and remove some of the links. [3]
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what to do now. I think there are two options.
Perhaps we should create two articles - Classic (word) and Classic (disambiguation). Well, one of them would probably just be called Classic but I’m pretty neutral on which one that would be.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that I didn't like the text, it didn't go far enough to make the scope of the article clear. The problem with disambiguation is that there are hundreds of articles with classic in the title, nearly all of them sporting events (I assume that wouldn't include lists of things that might be considered classic). It's not a bad idea but a lot of work. ProfDEH ( talk) 08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this article could be re-ordered along the lines of the article classical. To give more of an overview and more meaningful groupings of uses. Yaris678 ( talk) 12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
A distinct lack of references here, and fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Hence minor rewrite of intro. ProfDEH ( talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. What is this page is trying to do? It's not really disambiguation because the various things listed are not particularly likely to be confused with each other. It doesn't really succeed in defining the word by giving examples either. The statement "Something that is classical is a classic" seems to me completely wrong and misleading, a bad start to the article. Is there anytthing to support it? ProfDEH ( talk) 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue I have with the recent changes is that disam pages SHOULD be basically list pages. They are not meant to be "regular" type pages. They are meant to be pages where you can quickly see which link you want. So the recent changes are ok but if kept, then this isn't really a disam page anymore and shouldn't be listed as one. Just my 2 cents. -- User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I gave some background.
This page was a disambiguation page. [1]
I noted that the way the links were grouped didn’t seem to make much sense, so I re-grouped the links and added some text at the start of each group. [2]
ProfDEH didn’t like the text I added and decided to write his own and remove some of the links. [3]
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what to do now. I think there are two options.
Perhaps we should create two articles - Classic (word) and Classic (disambiguation). Well, one of them would probably just be called Classic but I’m pretty neutral on which one that would be.
Yaris678 ( talk) 15:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that I didn't like the text, it didn't go far enough to make the scope of the article clear. The problem with disambiguation is that there are hundreds of articles with classic in the title, nearly all of them sporting events (I assume that wouldn't include lists of things that might be considered classic). It's not a bad idea but a lot of work. ProfDEH ( talk) 08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)