![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Why? It's a nickname that Republicans themselves use to describe top donors, included in a list of nicknames that members of organizations use to describe themselves. I fail to see how it doesn't fit with the theme or how it's less relevant than Roman Catholic Teetotallers or that particular painting. Stilgar135 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also link to the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes ? I came here looking for them. See also this list. They are amongst rare company ! -- 213.129.227.107 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Moving disambig page tp Pioneer, Pioneer page is currently redirecting to Settler, which doesn't make since as a settler is not necessarily a pioneer, nor vice versa... For example "A pioneer in the education profession..." 75.128.225.15 ( talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I restored the indication that the lead section contains claims made without citing reliable xources. Please also consider the relevancy of WP:NOT. We could as easily write, "A pioneer is foreign invader who steals land from indigneous peoples." ( sdsds - talk) 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
(I'm opening a discussion here following an exchange on my user talk page.) Another editor and I have gotten into a dispute over how to interpret and apply WP:LEAD ( diff). Wikipedia:Lead section#Opening sentence states: [the] opening sentence should immediately provide the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to the questions "What is it?" or "Who is he/she?" and "Why is this notable? Etymological information does not answer any of the who, what or why questions. Since this is a general overview of the term "pioneer" and its current and historical usages, my opinion is that a simple definition of the current, commonly understood definition as defined by reliable sources such as dictionaries, followed by an historical/etymological overview and treatment of other usages seems to me like the most reader-friendly way to organize the article in an encyclopedic way that satisfies WP style/content guidelines. -- Muchness ( talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In encyclopedias articles are on a topic. Exactly what is the topic of this article supposed to be? It can't be the term 'Pioneer' because that's what a dictionary entry is about- all the different meanings of the term pioneer. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.
The point is that you must pick by consensus a definition of the subject that is to be used that matches the article name 'pioneer'. You can only pick one subject. Another subject that also matches pioneer goes in another article. That's how encyclopedia entries work. That's how the wikipedia works.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pioneer → Pioneer (military) — Following comments on this talk page and at Talk:Pioneer (disambiguation), there's some question whether this article covers the term pioneer's primary topic as defined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the meaning that is "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)." I suggest moving this page to pioneer (military) and either
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Is there any real benefit to the disorganised and unwieldy list of units here? We probably shouldn't be trying to list every pioneer unit in existence, but it feels almost like this is what's being aimed for. Andrew Gray ( talk) 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need three different articles for these soldier types? What are the differences anyway? 88.115.93.18 ( talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Pioneer (military). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Why? It's a nickname that Republicans themselves use to describe top donors, included in a list of nicknames that members of organizations use to describe themselves. I fail to see how it doesn't fit with the theme or how it's less relevant than Roman Catholic Teetotallers or that particular painting. Stilgar135 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this also link to the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes ? I came here looking for them. See also this list. They are amongst rare company ! -- 213.129.227.107 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Moving disambig page tp Pioneer, Pioneer page is currently redirecting to Settler, which doesn't make since as a settler is not necessarily a pioneer, nor vice versa... For example "A pioneer in the education profession..." 75.128.225.15 ( talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I restored the indication that the lead section contains claims made without citing reliable xources. Please also consider the relevancy of WP:NOT. We could as easily write, "A pioneer is foreign invader who steals land from indigneous peoples." ( sdsds - talk) 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
(I'm opening a discussion here following an exchange on my user talk page.) Another editor and I have gotten into a dispute over how to interpret and apply WP:LEAD ( diff). Wikipedia:Lead section#Opening sentence states: [the] opening sentence should immediately provide the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to the questions "What is it?" or "Who is he/she?" and "Why is this notable? Etymological information does not answer any of the who, what or why questions. Since this is a general overview of the term "pioneer" and its current and historical usages, my opinion is that a simple definition of the current, commonly understood definition as defined by reliable sources such as dictionaries, followed by an historical/etymological overview and treatment of other usages seems to me like the most reader-friendly way to organize the article in an encyclopedic way that satisfies WP style/content guidelines. -- Muchness ( talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In encyclopedias articles are on a topic. Exactly what is the topic of this article supposed to be? It can't be the term 'Pioneer' because that's what a dictionary entry is about- all the different meanings of the term pioneer. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.
The point is that you must pick by consensus a definition of the subject that is to be used that matches the article name 'pioneer'. You can only pick one subject. Another subject that also matches pioneer goes in another article. That's how encyclopedia entries work. That's how the wikipedia works.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pioneer → Pioneer (military) — Following comments on this talk page and at Talk:Pioneer (disambiguation), there's some question whether this article covers the term pioneer's primary topic as defined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the meaning that is "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)." I suggest moving this page to pioneer (military) and either
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Is there any real benefit to the disorganised and unwieldy list of units here? We probably shouldn't be trying to list every pioneer unit in existence, but it feels almost like this is what's being aimed for. Andrew Gray ( talk) 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need three different articles for these soldier types? What are the differences anyway? 88.115.93.18 ( talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Pioneer (military). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)