Talk:Relics and Artifacts(Index)

From SkepticWiki

Excuse me, what was the point of that?

We now have people like Hancock and Velikovsky in one place, and the things they go woo-woo about (like the Pyramids) in another; we now have the Knights Templar in one section and the Holy Grail in another, although they're both part of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail nonsense; we now have the Egyptians in one place and the Pyramids in another.

I ask again, what on earth was the point?

I put these things together for a reason, which is that they're insperable, dammit!

--- Dr A.

The same thing had occurred to me, it seems like the Relics and Artifacts Index is redundant with the History and Pseudohistory Index, but not as inclusive. I think we should merge Relic and Artifacts into History and Pseudohistory. --Yahweh 10:23, 27 November 2005 (GMT)

Ok, if there's a consensus - or at least a movement - for putting them back together then put them back together. I just think that:

• History and Pseudohistory is a huge long list
• Relics and artifacts is a distinct category from pseudohistory
• There's no reason why articles can't crosslink. Why should "Egyptians" and "Pyramids" be in the same index? If they're truly that inseparable, they should be one article. If they aren't then they can be in separate indexes, with links within the article to each other. - ajrae

Personally, I think cross-linking and multiple indexes are good things. Make it easier for people to find what they're looking for; that's the power of the web: not everything has to be in one place or approached from one direction. —Shanek 20:30, 28 November 2005 (GMT)