![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Dab page LWA had an entry
which i struggled to construe. I'm aware that "with effect from" is what Yanks call "going into effect in", but i frankly don't have the patience to determine (from what is for me a quite chaotic target article) to do much more than preserve on this talk page what i found there.
We normally expect a Dab entry to be a noun phrase, often compounded in
apposition, which invites construing
which would normally be expected to be followed by a predicate being attributed to LWA.
Bottom line, there's too much verbiage for a Dab entry in either case: if
Social Fund (UK) doesn't contain info on LWA, it can't be even a temp target of the Dab entry, and if it does, the user doesn't need to have the relation spelled out on the Dab page in order to know that's the article where our LWA info is, and the Dab entry
either suffices to fix the Dab entry, or means the Dab entry is useless and should be junked until either SFUK sufficiently clarifies LWA or an LWA article is written that will permit
to do the full task of getting those seeking info on it to an appropriate article. Since i can't write the one or fix the other, i trust i've done at least some slight service to someone who can by recording here what i'm removing from the wretched Dab entry at LWA.
--
Jerzy•
t
07:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Dab page LWA had an entry
which i struggled to construe. I'm aware that "with effect from" is what Yanks call "going into effect in", but i frankly don't have the patience to determine (from what is for me a quite chaotic target article) to do much more than preserve on this talk page what i found there.
We normally expect a Dab entry to be a noun phrase, often compounded in
apposition, which invites construing
which would normally be expected to be followed by a predicate being attributed to LWA.
Bottom line, there's too much verbiage for a Dab entry in either case: if
Social Fund (UK) doesn't contain info on LWA, it can't be even a temp target of the Dab entry, and if it does, the user doesn't need to have the relation spelled out on the Dab page in order to know that's the article where our LWA info is, and the Dab entry
either suffices to fix the Dab entry, or means the Dab entry is useless and should be junked until either SFUK sufficiently clarifies LWA or an LWA article is written that will permit
to do the full task of getting those seeking info on it to an appropriate article. Since i can't write the one or fix the other, i trust i've done at least some slight service to someone who can by recording here what i'm removing from the wretched Dab entry at LWA.
--
Jerzy•
t
07:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)