Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATD 296-317"
(grrr) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:IMO, the Pynchon wiki, like Wikipedia, should not serve as a dictionary, but rather a useful and hopefully interesting aid to a reader. With that in mind, the definition of unknown phrases (of which Pynchon uses many) is appropriate. If something can be looked up in a dictionary, delete it. [[User:Bleakhaus|Bleakhaus]] 12:27, 16 December 2006 (PST) | :IMO, the Pynchon wiki, like Wikipedia, should not serve as a dictionary, but rather a useful and hopefully interesting aid to a reader. With that in mind, the definition of unknown phrases (of which Pynchon uses many) is appropriate. If something can be looked up in a dictionary, delete it. [[User:Bleakhaus|Bleakhaus]] 12:27, 16 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::If most readers will need to look it up, include it. And if Pynchon seems to be up to something subtle, definitely include it, to encourage guesses. Why delete anything even slightly useful??? --[[User:Robot|Robot]] 13:54, 16 December 2006 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 14:54, 16 December 2006
Is it appropriate to add all of the unknown phrases to the annotation pages? How and when do we decide that something like, say, "matte-surface" isn't in need of being on the annotations page? Or do we just let these things accumulate? Crazymonk 19:02, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- IMO, the Pynchon wiki, like Wikipedia, should not serve as a dictionary, but rather a useful and hopefully interesting aid to a reader. With that in mind, the definition of unknown phrases (of which Pynchon uses many) is appropriate. If something can be looked up in a dictionary, delete it. Bleakhaus 12:27, 16 December 2006 (PST)
- If most readers will need to look it up, include it. And if Pynchon seems to be up to something subtle, definitely include it, to encourage guesses. Why delete anything even slightly useful??? --Robot 13:54, 16 December 2006 (PST)
