Talk:Hobby: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter J. King (general comments) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Wow, you're on the ball. I came back to add more comment, and hit an edit conflict (did you get my e-mail, by the way?). --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 16:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT) | ::Wow, you're on the ball. I came back to add more comment, and hit an edit conflict (did you get my e-mail, by the way?). --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 16:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
yes, & answered. Peter, do you think you might be able t write this in a way that introduces the nature of the catch-all (or catch much) nature of the Hobbies workgroup? At this pont it is going to include hobbyist breeder of animals, the dog fancy, cat fancy, etc, collecting of all kinds, gardening, cooking etc. Maybe there is a way to go about it that will lend itself to future subcategories of workgroups. Workgroups are, right now, our key to building communities of authors and editors in fields, and matching articles to the editors who will be able to approve them. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 16:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:11, 3 April 2007
Come on everybody, pitch in here, please. Nancy Sculerati MD 16:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)
This article
The problem here is that it's difficult to see what more can be said; it's really only capable of being one of three things: a compendium covering all the (main) hobbies, a dictionary definition, or a portal page. The first is practically impossible (and undesirable), the second is possible, but the third is both possible and useful.
Also,I'm not sure what this was meant to say: "Often a hobby is seen as compensation of gainful employment". --Peter J. King Talk 16:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- I deleted it, as an expedient manuever. Nancy Sculerati 16:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- Wow, you're on the ball. I came back to add more comment, and hit an edit conflict (did you get my e-mail, by the way?). --Peter J. King Talk 16:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
yes, & answered. Peter, do you think you might be able t write this in a way that introduces the nature of the catch-all (or catch much) nature of the Hobbies workgroup? At this pont it is going to include hobbyist breeder of animals, the dog fancy, cat fancy, etc, collecting of all kinds, gardening, cooking etc. Maybe there is a way to go about it that will lend itself to future subcategories of workgroups. Workgroups are, right now, our key to building communities of authors and editors in fields, and matching articles to the editors who will be able to approve them. Nancy Sculerati 16:11, 3 April 2007 (CDT)