Cid Highwind (talk | contribs) (inevitable comment ;)) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hmm... I dont' know, but shouldn't we rather remove some quotes from the article instead of creating a subpage for it? In my opinion, quotes alone aren't really "encyclopedic", nor are they from the correct point of view. They are nice to have as a bonus to an article that otherwise is both of the above, but I don't think we should have separate and lengthy "quote articles". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hmm... I dont' know, but shouldn't we rather remove some quotes from the article instead of creating a subpage for it? In my opinion, quotes alone aren't really "encyclopedic", nor are they from the correct point of view. They are nice to have as a bonus to an article that otherwise is both of the above, but I don't think we should have separate and lengthy "quote articles". -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | : *lol* Nice idea, I kinda like it. It's similar to the discussion about creating pages for relationships of two characters. |
||
| + | :Maybe we could make an exception concerning the "big ones" like Kirk and Picard and keep this. --[[User:Memory|Memory]] 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:14, 22 January 2006
Hmm... I dont' know, but shouldn't we rather remove some quotes from the article instead of creating a subpage for it? In my opinion, quotes alone aren't really "encyclopedic", nor are they from the correct point of view. They are nice to have as a bonus to an article that otherwise is both of the above, but I don't think we should have separate and lengthy "quote articles". -- Cid Highwind 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- *lol* Nice idea, I kinda like it. It's similar to the discussion about creating pages for relationships of two characters.
- Maybe we could make an exception concerning the "big ones" like Kirk and Picard and keep this. --Memory 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)