User talk:Mono/Old: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Talkback: new section |
Undid revision 377577004 by Access Denied (talk): See here for rationale |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
How long does an article have to be to meet the GA criteria? This particular article seems really short, and yet it's a GA nominee. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[Telecommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (9*6=42)|<font face="Showcard Gothic"><font color="blue">Ve :|</font></font>]] 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
How long does an article have to be to meet the GA criteria? This particular article seems really short, and yet it's a GA nominee. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[Telecommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (9*6=42)|<font face="Showcard Gothic"><font color="blue">Ve :|</font></font>]] 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:{{tps}} An article do not have to be very long for [[WP:GA|GA]] as long as ''"it addresses the main aspects of the topic"'' (''"This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."''), according to the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|good article criteria]]. - [[w:User:EdoDodo|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">EdoDodo</font>]] <sup>[[w:User talk:EdoDodo|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#33dd44">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
:{{tps}} An article do not have to be very long for [[WP:GA|GA]] as long as ''"it addresses the main aspects of the topic"'' (''"This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."''), according to the [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|good article criteria]]. - [[w:User:EdoDodo|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">EdoDodo</font>]] <sup>[[w:User talk:EdoDodo|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#33dd44">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Talkback == |
|||
{{tb|Access Denied}} [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]] <sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|talk]]</sup><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|contribs]]</sub><small> [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Access Denied|editor review]]</small> 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:37, 7 August 2010
Template:Upgrade
User:Mono/header
Removing redlinks is NOT vandalism. Kindly revert your edit to the article and remove the warning from my talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unexplained section blanking is vandalism. drippingflame 05:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- 69 explained it in his edit summaries; he was removing red links. Clearly NOT vandalism since the article in question says it is only a list of those with existing biographical articles on wikipedia. Therefore the redlinks are out of place until such time as they have articles of their own. Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the actual diff ([1]), actual entries were removed, not just the links. By the way, redlinks help Wikipedia grow, (see study) and should only be removed if there is no way that an article might exist. Please take common sense into consideration when applying policy, however, the explanation provided in the edit summaries does not explain the actual reason for removing the entries. drippingflame 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually if you look at that very same diff, no real entries were removed. Everything removed was either a red link or borked attempt at an addition (all of which also don't have existing articles). And per the article in question, "The following are prominent Muslim Rajputs with existing biographical articles on Wikipedia." I'm very aware that red links help wiki grow but when they run contrary to the information on the page, I don't see how they are helpful. Different interpretations I suppose; but still, hardly vandalism. Regards and happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is this why you put a talkback on my page? I have nothing to add. Millahnna has very nicely summed up my reasoning, and the fallacy of yours. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually if you look at that very same diff, no real entries were removed. Everything removed was either a red link or borked attempt at an addition (all of which also don't have existing articles). And per the article in question, "The following are prominent Muslim Rajputs with existing biographical articles on Wikipedia." I'm very aware that red links help wiki grow but when they run contrary to the information on the page, I don't see how they are helpful. Different interpretations I suppose; but still, hardly vandalism. Regards and happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you look at the actual diff ([1]), actual entries were removed, not just the links. By the way, redlinks help Wikipedia grow, (see study) and should only be removed if there is no way that an article might exist. Please take common sense into consideration when applying policy, however, the explanation provided in the edit summaries does not explain the actual reason for removing the entries. drippingflame 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- 69 explained it in his edit summaries; he was removing red links. Clearly NOT vandalism since the article in question says it is only a list of those with existing biographical articles on wikipedia. Therefore the redlinks are out of place until such time as they have articles of their own. Millahnna (mouse)talk 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Template:Backtalk Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Smack!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For your hilarious, but minor Igloo hiccup. (I am using Huggle which is probably 100 times more buggy.) elektrikSHOOS 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Quick on the rollback, though... drippingflame 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I might as well add this...
Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- What the heck? This is getting fishy. drippingflame 05:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WikiProject Apple Inc. August 2010 Newsletter
 |
|
Project news
|
|
New articles
|
Featured article
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:mono.
Errors In Message Delivery
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Apple Inc. August 2010 Newsletter). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:
- RN - Invalid username.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 01:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC).
- Hmm... Seems that user was renamed, perhaps the bot should follow the redirect instead of outputting an error message. Might change its behavior. - EdoDodo talk 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
How long does an article have to be to meet the GA criteria? This particular article seems really short, and yet it's a GA nominee. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) An article do not have to be very long for GA as long as "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" ("This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."), according to the good article criteria. - EdoDodo talk 23:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)