Difference between revisions of "Talk:Geologic system"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(fooey) |
(→Article name: Not a helpful comment.) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Me too, but due to the Kommandments, I can't print it here. This article is just garbage. Although the hilarious, obligatory YEC (why isn't this called YECapedia?) "perspective" is, I guess, par for the course, where is the ''article''? What do we learn when we read this? Almost nothing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ::Me too, but due to the Kommandments, I can't print it here. This article is just garbage. Although the hilarious, obligatory YEC (why isn't this called YECapedia?) "perspective" is, I guess, par for the course, where is the ''article''? What do we learn when we read this? Almost nothing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::That's a very helpful comment, Human. Not. Rather than just mock and criticise, how about suggesting how it could be improved (with specifics), or point out precisely what is wrong with it. To just dismiss it as having a YEC perspective indicates that rather than there being anything factually wrong with it, you simply have an ideological issue with it. If so, that's your problem, not the article's. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:05, April 29, 2007
Article name
Any opinions on which is the correct (or better) name?
- Google has 53,900 hits on English pages for "Geologic Column".
- Google has 24,600 hits on English pages for "Geological Column" (the present title).
Philip J. Rayment 05:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- Scratch that; I've decided on a different name altogether. Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- Me too, but due to the Kommandments, I can't print it here. This article is just garbage. Although the hilarious, obligatory YEC (why isn't this called YECapedia?) "perspective" is, I guess, par for the course, where is the article? What do we learn when we read this? Almost nothing. Human 21:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- That's a very helpful comment, Human. Not. Rather than just mock and criticise, how about suggesting how it could be improved (with specifics), or point out precisely what is wrong with it. To just dismiss it as having a YEC perspective indicates that rather than there being anything factually wrong with it, you simply have an ideological issue with it. If so, that's your problem, not the article's. Philip J. Rayment 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Me too, but due to the Kommandments, I can't print it here. This article is just garbage. Although the hilarious, obligatory YEC (why isn't this called YECapedia?) "perspective" is, I guess, par for the course, where is the article? What do we learn when we read this? Almost nothing. Human 21:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)