Talk:Compendium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 has been improved by User:dbuckner.
• 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.

I found most of the article to be incomprehensible and deleted large parts. Unless someone feels compelled to improve this, the article should eventually be deleted and wikilinks to compendium should become wiktionary links. Lambiam 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbuckner has improved the definition article. --72.128.107.62 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)