Talk:Childcraft
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annuals list edit
Any discussion on whether a list of annuals would belong in this article?? The list would include 40 titles, ranging from 1965 to 2004. I don't think any Childcraft book deserves its own Wikipedia article. Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems good to me; short descriptions can go with them, and if necessary the whole list of annuals could go to a separate page.
Childcraft – The How and Why Library edit
Proper Title edit
Encyclopedic in scope, Wikipedia would do well to cite the publication's title in the article title. I would be inclined to also add each of the serie's volumes by year, stating why 2 may have been published in one year's time, as well as what spurred the additional volume, such as current events or discoveries which were included in the volumes. Wikipedians appear to like lists and userboxes, so list the individual titles in some appealing box-like display.
Orschstaffer (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) edit
Dis-ambiguation header edit
User:Spshu added a dis-ambiguation header at the top of this article that reveals another meaning of Childcraft that has no links of any kind. I reverted, saying that a dis-ambiguation header must have links. But Spshu reverted me, saying that this dis-ambiguation header doesn't need a link. The purpose of a dis-ambiguation header is to reveal links to alternate articles a title can refer to. For example, look at London. The article itself is about one meaning of London, the capital of England, which all anglophones are familiar with. The dis-ambiguation header has links to other meanings of London, and it is thus very useful. But how is a linkless dis-ambiguation header useful?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- It useful in that show that we know another subject with a similar name exist despite it not having article. `It informs a reader we do know about the other subject and that it doesn't have an article here and is not associated with the article they are at, so they don't continue reading the article looking for some connection. As a reader, do you, Georgia Guy, like to have your time wasted? Probably not. Spshu (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- User:Spshu, you can always create an article if you don't see an article on a subject you want to find an article about. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- A subject must be notable to have an article not just because I want it to have an article. Only thing I have found about Childcraft Education is that it was bought and sold by Disney Shopping/Disney Direct Marketing, which I am current working on in my sandbox. Spshu (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if you (or anyone) can create a well-written article, feel free to do so, and after that this article can have a dis-ambiguation header that links to it. But until then, there should be no dis-ambiguation header. Georgia guy (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed you to the hatnote which you apparently have not read (Template:About2: "This page is about USE1. TEXT." No wikilinks) as it is total texted base. I specifically look for one of the disambig templates that did not wikilink a field. So, stop issuing orders like this is your website or that you are the adjudicating party. You need to point to some guideline or indicate a good reason. Your original reason was shot out of the water just by the existence of about2 and my reason. You need to attempt to convince me not order me about. Spshu (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I checked the "What links here" for the template and the articles do have links in the template. Can somebody besides the 2 of us please reveal your opinions on this discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- I pointed you to the hatnote which you apparently have not read (Template:About2: "This page is about USE1. TEXT." No wikilinks) as it is total texted base. I specifically look for one of the disambig templates that did not wikilink a field. So, stop issuing orders like this is your website or that you are the adjudicating party. You need to point to some guideline or indicate a good reason. Your original reason was shot out of the water just by the existence of about2 and my reason. You need to attempt to convince me not order me about. Spshu (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if you (or anyone) can create a well-written article, feel free to do so, and after that this article can have a dis-ambiguation header that links to it. But until then, there should be no dis-ambiguation header. Georgia guy (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- A subject must be notable to have an article not just because I want it to have an article. Only thing I have found about Childcraft Education is that it was bought and sold by Disney Shopping/Disney Direct Marketing, which I am current working on in my sandbox. Spshu (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- User:Spshu, you can always create an article if you don't see an article on a subject you want to find an article about. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Missing/mislabeled 73-82 series edit
I kept some of these books from childhood. Looking through here's what I see from this serial:
- 5: About Animals - 7: How Things Work - 8: How We Get Things - 10: Places to Know
6 appears to be "The Green Kingdom" 165.23.215.130 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)