Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transitional form"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(In context...) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::: What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST) | :::: What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ||
::::: Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years ''when looking for a quote to add''. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ::::: Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years ''when looking for a quote to add''. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :::::: Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:44, January 24, 2008
Recent quote
Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? Barikada 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... Barikada 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- Not it wouldn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. Barikada 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years when looking for a quote to add. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. Barikada 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years when looking for a quote to add. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. Barikada 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Not it wouldn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
- Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... Barikada 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)