search talk:Canonical site
[edit] Acceptance
Flagging this as a "generally accepted standard" is inappropriate, in my view. In particular, it has been asked whether link lists are OK, but this has not really been debated on the wiki. Has it been debated elsewhere? --RainerBlome 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This is kind of a stupid expample. Please use non-religious ones!
- The links had been changed. Fred 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey genius Fred, the links are still of a religious nature. How about not using this page to promote your moronic... ooops... I mean "mormon" religious orientation?
- The invitation is to put some more fertile illustrations. Do not use a religious example. Joefaust 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Great improvement
Very glad to see this guideline is now clear and to the point with a far better example. --Ipigott 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I hope the guideline remains clear. I have restored the controversial examples. I have have done so because it is likely anyone searching for Mormon or Joseph Smith is likely to be looking for official versions of information, which both sites contain in abundance. Fred Talk 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine now that you have the Concorde example too. The only question remaining for me is whether a canonical site should contain extensive information on a topic. It seems to me that more often than not, searchers want links to brief, easy-to-understand articles or sites which provide the essentials. I was also wondering if it might not be a good idea to create mini articles on these help topics. I think most people looking for information would probably start by typing "canonical site" on the normal search page which would then trigger a mini. --Ipigott 08:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the site just has to be quite useful to a significant fraction of users. Well "canonical site" itself is a rather odd term, almost incomprehensible, in fact. I think the word you want is "summary" which would be a brief summary of the basic facts about a topic. Fred Talk 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- As there was no objection to my suggestion that "extensive" might be inappropriate, I have deleted the term. My next question is whether "common sense" really warrants an article. Ditto "occasional exceptions". I would suggest the links be removed.--Ipigott 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine now that you have the Concorde example too. The only question remaining for me is whether a canonical site should contain extensive information on a topic. It seems to me that more often than not, searchers want links to brief, easy-to-understand articles or sites which provide the essentials. I was also wondering if it might not be a good idea to create mini articles on these help topics. I think most people looking for information would probably start by typing "canonical site" on the normal search page which would then trigger a mini. --Ipigott 08:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Very poor improvement
For controversial subjects there should be links to websites that are objective, unbiased and/or have a neutral stance on the subject. But if a "pro" website is listed as an example website then an "anti" website should be listed as well. For example...if "pro life" websites are listed in an article on abortion then "pro choice" websites should be listed as well. Mormonism is another example of a controversial subject that should ideally only contain links to third party neutral websites. But if pro-mormonism websites are listed then anti-mormonism websites should be listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.210.250 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but you need to find a better one. The links on this page are only examples. In other words, a report about the battle, not the battle itself. Fred Talk 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, how about this website then... http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
- I think it is acceptable as an example. I'd try to find something a little better for Mini:Mormon though. Something based more on historical scholarship. Fred Talk 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain why it's necessary to list two websites as an example of a Canonical site?
- I think it is acceptable as an example. I'd try to find something a little better for Mini:Mormon though. Something based more on historical scholarship. Fred Talk 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, how about this website then... http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm
It's not, please find another example. Fred Talk 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)