Talk:Jimmy Wales/Definition: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David H. Barrett (New page: Hi, Tom. Good to see someone keeping an eye on their work around here! Is there any particular reason for removing the precise date from the DoB, and narrowing it to a year? This is not, b...) |
imported>Tom Morris No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi, Tom. Good to see someone keeping an eye on their work around here! Is there any particular reason for removing the precise date from the DoB, and narrowing it to a year? This is not, by the way, a pointed or disingenuous question, but a genuine inquiry. (Sometimes it's difficult to seem polite in type!) I'm a bit of a "less is less" kind of person when it comes to knowledge and information. Plus there seem to be a number of formats going around for this sort of thing, ranging from full dates to none at all (and I'd prefer any to none), so is there a style requirement for such references? If so, I'm happy to conform. Cheers. [[User:David H. Barrett|David H. Barrett]] 15:07, 26 August 2008 (CDT) | Hi, Tom. Good to see someone keeping an eye on their work around here! Is there any particular reason for removing the precise date from the DoB, and narrowing it to a year? This is not, by the way, a pointed or disingenuous question, but a genuine inquiry. (Sometimes it's difficult to seem polite in type!) I'm a bit of a "less is less" kind of person when it comes to knowledge and information. Plus there seem to be a number of formats going around for this sort of thing, ranging from full dates to none at all (and I'd prefer any to none), so is there a style requirement for such references? If so, I'm happy to conform. Cheers. [[User:David H. Barrett|David H. Barrett]] 15:07, 26 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
: There's no official style requirement. I've written a ton of definitions and I think that just having the year is fine. People can always click through to the full article for details. The definition is not the place for detail, it's the place for a really broad overview. The years on their own give enough of an overview - they just help people orient themselves - to be able to see that [[Jimmy Wales]] and [[Plato]] are of quite different generations. There's no official style yet. Perhaps it's time someone delves through the definitions and comes up with an official style. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 15:45, 26 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:45, 26 August 2008
Hi, Tom. Good to see someone keeping an eye on their work around here! Is there any particular reason for removing the precise date from the DoB, and narrowing it to a year? This is not, by the way, a pointed or disingenuous question, but a genuine inquiry. (Sometimes it's difficult to seem polite in type!) I'm a bit of a "less is less" kind of person when it comes to knowledge and information. Plus there seem to be a number of formats going around for this sort of thing, ranging from full dates to none at all (and I'd prefer any to none), so is there a style requirement for such references? If so, I'm happy to conform. Cheers. David H. Barrett 15:07, 26 August 2008 (CDT)
- There's no official style requirement. I've written a ton of definitions and I think that just having the year is fine. People can always click through to the full article for details. The definition is not the place for detail, it's the place for a really broad overview. The years on their own give enough of an overview - they just help people orient themselves - to be able to see that Jimmy Wales and Plato are of quite different generations. There's no official style yet. Perhaps it's time someone delves through the definitions and comes up with an official style. --Tom Morris 15:45, 26 August 2008 (CDT)