Talk:Biology/Related Articles: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
What do you think? Will this be useful? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT) | What do you think? Will this be useful? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Lines through the subpage template == | |||
Note the lines through the subpage template here. Anybody know a way to fix that? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:02, 6 July 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 23:02, 6 July 2007
Subfields table/template
There is a "General subfields within biology" that I simply moved from the bottom of the Biology page here. I think that by regularizing the location of internal links--including links to articles about subfields--by putting them on "Related Links" pages, this sort of table/template is going to be redundant. If you want to know what the subfields are, you'll always know to look under "related."
Basically, I've always had a bit of a problem with such tables on Wikipedia. (Adding them was a practice that started after I left, so don't blame me.) The links listed are, as they are here in the "Subdisciplines" section, completely redundant. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Chris, the table is impressive, but I have a worry about it, namely, that so much formatting is going to make some people wary of editing it, and will perhaps make other people less likely to work on the "related" page simply because they think they'll have to know how to work complicated tables.
So I'm inclined to say we should remove the tabular form and simply list the links. --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Should links be annotated?
I very much like the brief annotations of links. I think such annotations will really help the end user. Some links, however, will probably be used over and over again on these "related" pages. We don't want to type those annotations over and over again.
So I wonder if it wouldn't make sense, instead, for us to add yet another subpage type for all articles: a one-sentence definition. I'll create a few examples.
I actually think it will be a nice "in"--we'll get our foot in the door, the camel's nose in the tent, get people thinking about a mere definition, and they'll build out the entire wiki in advance of full articles. And I think this will probably be an excellent thing.
What do you think? Will this be useful? --Larry Sanger 22:59, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Lines through the subpage template
Note the lines through the subpage template here. Anybody know a way to fix that? --Larry Sanger 23:02, 6 July 2007 (CDT)