Talk:Acrostic (puzzle)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this is supposed to be an article on acrostics, doesn't it make sense to mention Charles Duerr as well as the others? He wrote two series (around forty books) of crostics for Simon and Schuster..and certainly they sold well enough. What's the problem here? Frankly I'm getting annoyed at the way Wikipedia ignores reasonable changes made in the articles.Don't say this is the encyclopedia that readers can edit when the editing is ignored.oldcitycat 15:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little curious what you're expecting to happen. If you want to add more information to the article, then just add the information. That's what the "everyone can edit" bit means. --71.197.67.138 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hi people hope you have a good time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.116.113 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic names removed

This article should only have the names of people who created something new or otherwise were especially notable. WP:BIO reads: "that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary."

Most of these names are not significant, unusual, or famous. They aren't interesting to a general reader -- certainly not without additional facts.

Consider that not everyone who ever wrote any kind of puzzle for a newpapser or magazine or Web page should be in an encyclopedia. Probably the only name that needs to appear in the article is the inventor's. Think "Encyclopedia Britiannica".

24.130.9.210 (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not "think EB" -- WP:NOTPAPER. If we routinely omit what isn't interesting to the "general reader", there won't be much left.  Elphion (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)