Talk:Compendium
|
|
So, what do we think of this? Personally, I have to say it feels very low on content, as though we're stretching to find things to say about compendia. But I'm open to hearing other perspectives. Jwrosenzweig 17:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't actually stretch for content at all in making it. There were components of compendium that wikipedia brought up that needed to be resolved so I added them as headings. As a side effect, I proved that even what you would think is a simple definition can have sublevels. Bensaccount 17:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. I think the sublevels feel arbitrary and contrived. I do understand that there could be difference of opinion, however, and am interested in what others feel about this. If I am overwhelmingly outvoted, I will of course concede the point. Jwrosenzweig 17:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry to sound harsh, but my first impression on reading the article was that it's probably just one of those things you have to be stoned to get. Mkweise 22:34, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You are right, I took out those links to "cosmos" and "human mind". I didn't get much sleep before I wrote this. Bensaccount 18:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Other sublevels of compendium:
- The definition page is is major dissaray.
- The meaning page seems well done but could be simplified.
- The word page needs some disambiguation.
- The association page needs disambiguation.
- The link to human mind could be replaced with something else (im not sure exactly), or that page could be created.
- The tradition page seems ok.
- I like the sound page at first glance.