Talk:Discordianism

Article Checklist for "Discordianism"

Workgroup category or categories	Religion Workgroup, Philosophy Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	No
Checklist last edited by	Michael MacNeil 17:01, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

My First Article

Well, it took me all afternoon, but it's complete. I hold no illusions about its quality, I know I'm surely leaving some things out, or have written some sections poorly, or made spelling mistakes. So, if anyone sees a problem with this page, please don't hesitate to come give me a shout on my talk page or similar, and let me know. If you see something wrong but don't feel up to changing it yourself, let me know, and I promise I'll do my best to. I hope it's up to standard. It's completely original, though I looked up a few sources I remembered were mentioned in the Wikipedia article (rather than dig through my own book collection for, say, Drawing Down the Moon to look up the relevant parts). I'm marking it CZ live, and putting it in the Philosophy and Religion workgroup categories. If this is inappropriate,please let me know and I will undo it. Michael MacNeil 15:24, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Added the checklist

Please do this on new articles from now on. Nice job for a first draft though :0) --Eric M Gearhart 16:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Ah, see? I'm still learning. Thank you for reminding me about the checklist. As to its status, would you care to make any suggestions on how I could make it more devloped? Additionally, I changed the template to a "no" for underlinked. If you have occasion to check the Religion page, you'll see I added it under "borderline cases", and thus it links to the over-category, and have also removed it from the Philosophy Workgroup. Upon consideration, I've read the Philosophy page and realized it doesn't really "fit". That is to say, I was erroneous in thinking it fit into hard philosophy. It just sort of overlaps. Michael MacNeil 17:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)