Talk:End of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..along with scores of others, into sub-categorys, any reason these two should alone should be on the disambig page? Stbalbach 04:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] End of the world (philosophy) is a misleading title

Hi,

An anonymous contributor has pointed out that "End of the world (philosophy)" is a misleading title. Even though I created that article and its name I quite agree, since it currently talks about Philosophy bringing about the end of the world, where it might seem to be a philosophical consideration of eschatology. However, I selected this name because:

  1. It is consistent with the naming convention: "End of the world (X)".
  2. There is nothing to stop it being expanded to contain philosophical analysis of what "the end of the world" would mean - although this might then require another disambiguation.
  3. We need several more articles to contain all of the available ideas about the end of the world (or civilization). All of the current articles are getting full up, so I made a new one, but this is only ment to be part of a continuing series.

Anyway, please change the title or move the contents if a better name or standard can be agreed. There is no reason for End of the world (philosophy) to be mentioned on the disambiguation page, unless the other world-end articles are. If they are, then disambiguation should apply to philosophical world ending as well, shouldn't it?

Thanks for reading,

Wragge 17:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

[edit] subsections

There is no reason to break it into sub-sections of religion versus non religion, unless you have some specific unspoken reason to draw that distinction? And if you do it is an inappropriate reason to create sub-sections. There are three natural ways to organize the data so future editors know where to put new types. It is much cleaner and easier to understand. General articles about major themes, and articles about specific cultural topics. This is for ease of use for readers and editors, thats all. Stbalbach 18:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Organization

Ive spent considerable time and work organizing the "end of the world" problem on Wikipedia. Before making major structural changes please discuss as it will impact many many articles and there will be considerable work involved in updateing many pages. Thank you. Stbalbach 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] dab style

Per MoS:DP, this page is a mess. I just removed a bunch of clearly unnecessary links and phrases. Much work remains. I'll get to it if no one else does first. If you object, we might as well discuss this first, though I won't wait for your objections. I will discuss your objections before acting, if I haven't already acted. Tedernst | talk 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I was reverted. Could someone else help? Tedernst | talk 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It was only a partial revert. Don't get me wrong; it's not that you're not correct in that there was a lot of superfluous stuff there but there's a couple of problems:
Firstly, the unpiped links are not accurate. For example, the song isn't called "End of the World (Cold)", it's called "End of the World", and it's by Cold. This really should be another exception, but this is minor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Piping is not used on dab pages. If you disagree with that stylisticly, that'll need to be talked about at the MoS:DP talk page and the style guideline changed. As it is, I find it much more readable to find the page I need if the pipes aren't there, because some of the context is right there in the link, rather than hidden and then explained again after the comma. Tedernst | talk 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, that's a minor point - you can unpipe them back if you want, I'm not making a big issue of it. The more important one was below. I appreciate the work you're doing on the MoS corrections; you just to be a bit more discriminating in what information you're removing. Cheers. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Will do. Thanks. Tedernst | talk 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Secondly, and more importantly, the way you were leaving some of the links (red or otherwise) made them completely meaningless - End of the World (Eggleston) being a case in point. If article-less pages don't merit inclusion in a dab list, then remove them entirely. If the redlinks are to be in there, some context has to be provided until the articles are created. Stub articles, IMO, are not a solution, because I find that stubs actually discourage people from creating articles - redlinks are better at that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with the criticism of my redlinks. If those weren't the proper names, I agree, they should be fixed. Tedernst | talk 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] item removed

This item doesn't link to an article, so I removed it.

  • End of the World News is a Russian counterculture web almanac that was updated in 1997-1998 by Michael Verbitzky. Totally there were seven issues of EOWN.

The subject is more than 7 years old and still doesn't have an article. It seems unlikly to have one soon. When it does, obviously, this item may return. Tedernst | talk 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "End of the World" web video

Should materials, such as this video distributed around the World Wide Web, be counted on this page? DaDoc540 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)