![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 7, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from The Skeptic (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion took place on my talk page. I'm moving it here, where it properly belongs. Any additional discussion should take place here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your edits there and your edit summaries. You added links stating "restored standard film article links" however per Film project consensus and WP:EL, just because those are "standard" links does not mean they should be included automatically if they do not actually add any content beyond what the article already has. Those links were specifically excluded because of the lack of content beyond plot summary and cast/crew, which is already in the article. Please explain how you feel they add significant value to the article?
Re your naming of the References section to Notes stating "enumerated in-line citations are universally called "notes", a specific form of reference" - um, no they are not. Notes are used when a note section is purely actual notes, for a mix of notes and references, or if you are using the shortened form of notes with full references in a separate section. This article is using full, in-line citations. No where in any guideline or policy have I seen requires a full, in-line citation section to be called "Notes" nor has it ever come up in any FA or FL discussion I've ever seen where sections are always called References. In the end, it is still pretty much personal preference, and per WP:CITE, "the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected". So please do not change this again, as per the existing guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't exist in a world of its own, separate from the real world. It can make up its own definitions if it wants, like Humpty-Dumpty, but it only serves to make it look silly to people who already have a tendency to look down on it. There's no reason in the world to give them further ammunition. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that these standard film article links have every reason to be included, and our guidelines (not rules to be followed slavishly and dogmatically) allow them. Please do not remove them again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 7, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from The Skeptic (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion took place on my talk page. I'm moving it here, where it properly belongs. Any additional discussion should take place here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re your edits there and your edit summaries. You added links stating "restored standard film article links" however per Film project consensus and WP:EL, just because those are "standard" links does not mean they should be included automatically if they do not actually add any content beyond what the article already has. Those links were specifically excluded because of the lack of content beyond plot summary and cast/crew, which is already in the article. Please explain how you feel they add significant value to the article?
Re your naming of the References section to Notes stating "enumerated in-line citations are universally called "notes", a specific form of reference" - um, no they are not. Notes are used when a note section is purely actual notes, for a mix of notes and references, or if you are using the shortened form of notes with full references in a separate section. This article is using full, in-line citations. No where in any guideline or policy have I seen requires a full, in-line citation section to be called "Notes" nor has it ever come up in any FA or FL discussion I've ever seen where sections are always called References. In the end, it is still pretty much personal preference, and per WP:CITE, "the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected". So please do not change this again, as per the existing guideline. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't exist in a world of its own, separate from the real world. It can make up its own definitions if it wants, like Humpty-Dumpty, but it only serves to make it look silly to people who already have a tendency to look down on it. There's no reason in the world to give them further ammunition. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that these standard film article links have every reason to be included, and our guidelines (not rules to be followed slavishly and dogmatically) allow them. Please do not remove them again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)