Talk:Digital classics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should the title of this page not be Digital Classics? Classics being a used as a pronoun here. SimonMahony 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should. I moved to the lowercase 'c' because "Digital Classics" is not a project or a site, but you have a good point that 'Classics' is written with a majuscule 'C' when it refers to the academic discipline. Gabrielbodard 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this page really should exist, however, as the term is not really in common usage. The discussion of the history of Digital classics is not uncomfortable in the Digital Classicist article. Gabrielbodard 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point: when this page was created, the most recent version of Digital Classicist was not taken; so, for example, the footnote to Crane's article disappeared both from this page and the original. Can we be more careful when carving up pages like this, please? Gabrielbodard 17:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I've put a picture in as an experiment. Doesn't really belong here as it's 10th century not classical, but it shows you how to do it. edward (buckner) 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"u don't need academic type refs"

What sort of a comment is this? Has there been a reversal in policy recently and Wikipedia no longer considers verifiable references to encyclopedic content desirable? What is it about these footnotes that were considered unnecessary? Gabrielbodard 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]