Difference between revisions of "Talk:KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown"
From Conservapedia
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Or perhaps the entire article should be a section or subarticle with the KAL 007 article itself? It seems 'lost' as an article on its own, without surrounding context? Interesting stuff though. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:34, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | :Or perhaps the entire article should be a section or subarticle with the KAL 007 article itself? It seems 'lost' as an article on its own, without surrounding context? Interesting stuff though. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:34, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought of that, but am still undecided. If so, it should be a special section, but I don't know exactly where. The other consideration, it would make the main article espescially long. I don't know if that is a great consideration, though. What do others think?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 14:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:33, May 7, 2008
Shouldn't this article have as it's opening sentence a brief description of the incident it refers to? As of now, it simply launches into a discussion of the timeline and cockpit recordings, and an uninformed reader simply has no idea what the KAL 007 incident actually is. StatsFan 12:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
will doBertSchlossberg 12:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
- Or perhaps the entire article should be a section or subarticle with the KAL 007 article itself? It seems 'lost' as an article on its own, without surrounding context? Interesting stuff though. StatsFan 12:34, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I thought of that, but am still undecided. If so, it should be a special section, but I don't know exactly where. The other consideration, it would make the main article espescially long. I don't know if that is a great consideration, though. What do others think?BertSchlossberg 14:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
