Talk:History of food: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (title) |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I gotta say that I don't like the title at all. How about [[Food, the history of]] or [[Food (the history of)]] or [[Food (history of)]]? As it stands, it sounds to me as if it's the start of a list: Food, history, Henry Ford, calories, blackbirds, pie, etc.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:23, 17 September 2007 (CDT) | I gotta say that I don't like the title at all. How about [[Food, the history of]] or [[Food (the history of)]] or [[Food (history of)]]? As it stands, it sounds to me as if it's the start of a list: Food, history, Henry Ford, calories, blackbirds, pie, etc.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:23, 17 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Well I suppose [[Food, historical roles]] or [[Food, world history]] are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT) | ::Well I suppose [[Food, historical roles]] or [[Food, world history]] are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
::::Just to comment on the latter comment. It is incorrect that we should avoid parentheses in titles. We use them as disambiguators. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:01, 17 September 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:01, 17 September 2007
Ooo-wee. Huge topic, it'd seem. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:41, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
name of article
I gotta say that I don't like the title at all. How about Food, the history of or Food (the history of) or Food (history of)? As it stands, it sounds to me as if it's the start of a list: Food, history, Henry Ford, calories, blackbirds, pie, etc.... Hayford Peirce 12:23, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well I suppose Food, historical roles or Food, world history are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). Richard Jensen 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Just to comment on the latter comment. It is incorrect that we should avoid parentheses in titles. We use them as disambiguators. --Larry Sanger 16:01, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well I suppose Food, historical roles or Food, world history are OK--note that historians and publishers strongly dislike titles such as "The History of XYZ" and have deliberately avoided them in last decade or two. . We should avoid parentheses in titles. (I put one in the Malthus article and it looks a bit odd). Richard Jensen 15:56, 17 September 2007 (CDT)