Time to be WP:BOLD Ronbo76 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Paris (disambiguation) for other places named Paris that are not in France. Ronbo76 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems a perfect example of Sturgeon's Law, which states, Nothing is always absolutely so. Needs to be incorporated into essay. Ronbo76 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that wikilinks have been provided, how can this essay be improved? Be WP:BOLD! Ronbo76 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- POV statement about impoverished should be removed. Ronbo76 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- No section outlining a contrary opinion that provides a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. Ronbo76 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be dense. If people abided by this, other policies would flow naturally and be intuitive. Seems like a start. Ronbo76 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Impoverished should be removed removed too unless properly sourced. Non-need context that is a POV comment. Ronbo76 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I very intentionally used the same terminology, amount of wikilinks, and notability level of the example that I found in the almost year-old essay Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. I reasoned that if it has been around that long, there is some level of consensus that that essay is a good guideline in those areas. 76.22.4.86 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Saw this in one of my watched article (mostly likely the Village Pump). If this article has not had proper or formal review at some level, it is not at the WP level. Ronbo76 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cross check w/ VP etal.
This essay is redundant to WP:POPE, which was extant well before this essay. I suggest a redirect. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Same point, different words. Endorse redirecting.
Picaroon 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that it is different words gives readers something slightly different to chew on. I reverted the redirect (because *gasp* I thought it was vandalism, sorry), but would ask that we leave them separate.
MKoltnow 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having the same essay essentially stated twice? —
Signed, your friendly neighborhood
MessedRocker. 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's some kind of meta-issue present in this discussion might be worth considering. Having trouble articulating it right now. (This comment is not an endorsement of or an objection to merging.) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having the same essay essentially stated twice? —
Signed, your friendly neighborhood
MessedRocker. 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that it is different words gives readers something slightly different to chew on. I reverted the redirect (because *gasp* I thought it was vandalism, sorry), but would ask that we leave them separate.
MKoltnow 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Time to be WP:BOLD Ronbo76 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Paris (disambiguation) for other places named Paris that are not in France. Ronbo76 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems a perfect example of Sturgeon's Law, which states, Nothing is always absolutely so. Needs to be incorporated into essay. Ronbo76 20:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that wikilinks have been provided, how can this essay be improved? Be WP:BOLD! Ronbo76 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- POV statement about impoverished should be removed. Ronbo76 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- No section outlining a contrary opinion that provides a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. Ronbo76 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be dense. If people abided by this, other policies would flow naturally and be intuitive. Seems like a start. Ronbo76 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Impoverished should be removed removed too unless properly sourced. Non-need context that is a POV comment. Ronbo76 02:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I very intentionally used the same terminology, amount of wikilinks, and notability level of the example that I found in the almost year-old essay Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. I reasoned that if it has been around that long, there is some level of consensus that that essay is a good guideline in those areas. 76.22.4.86 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Saw this in one of my watched article (mostly likely the Village Pump). If this article has not had proper or formal review at some level, it is not at the WP level. Ronbo76 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cross check w/ VP etal.
This essay is redundant to WP:POPE, which was extant well before this essay. I suggest a redirect. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Same point, different words. Endorse redirecting.
Picaroon 04:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that it is different words gives readers something slightly different to chew on. I reverted the redirect (because *gasp* I thought it was vandalism, sorry), but would ask that we leave them separate.
MKoltnow 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having the same essay essentially stated twice? —
Signed, your friendly neighborhood
MessedRocker. 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's some kind of meta-issue present in this discussion might be worth considering. Having trouble articulating it right now. (This comment is not an endorsement of or an objection to merging.) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What benefit is there in having the same essay essentially stated twice? —
Signed, your friendly neighborhood
MessedRocker. 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the fact that it is different words gives readers something slightly different to chew on. I reverted the redirect (because *gasp* I thought it was vandalism, sorry), but would ask that we leave them separate.
MKoltnow 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)