The result was merge to History of As the World Turns. v/r - T P 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The above articles... They should either merge together or be deleted. Currently, they are a total mess: no citations, improper formatting (list or chart), bad external links, and trivia. The real-world perspective is either absent or seldom inserted; just fictional-based elements remain. Everything is possibly against
WP:IINFO. --
Gh87 (
talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As the World Turns is a more concise, professional article than the above articles. I have recently found: some articles contradict the titles, such as the "1976-1980": I don't see anything written about the year 1976 or 1979; I see 1980-199?. --
Gh87 (
talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Either type of material is unsuited for a combined article (the family trees might be included as images, but the current formatting is extremely bad). As I do not see anything remotely like "discussing the reception and significance of notable works" in such a combined article I can only conclude it would violate wp:PLOT as well and deletion (or redirect to the main article) is required. Yoenit ( talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to History of As the World Turns. v/r - T P 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The above articles... They should either merge together or be deleted. Currently, they are a total mess: no citations, improper formatting (list or chart), bad external links, and trivia. The real-world perspective is either absent or seldom inserted; just fictional-based elements remain. Everything is possibly against
WP:IINFO. --
Gh87 (
talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
As the World Turns is a more concise, professional article than the above articles. I have recently found: some articles contradict the titles, such as the "1976-1980": I don't see anything written about the year 1976 or 1979; I see 1980-199?. --
Gh87 (
talk) 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
reply
Either type of material is unsuited for a combined article (the family trees might be included as images, but the current formatting is extremely bad). As I do not see anything remotely like "discussing the reception and significance of notable works" in such a combined article I can only conclude it would violate wp:PLOT as well and deletion (or redirect to the main article) is required. Yoenit ( talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply