User talk:Victoriaedwards: Difference between revisions
m ←Blanked the page |
StevenBlack (talk | contribs) m Undid revision 362273764 by Victoriaedwards (talk) You have been asked REPEATEDLY and POLITELY not to blank your talk page. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== [[St._Lawrence_College,_Ontario]] == |
|||
Re: [[St._Lawrence_College,_Ontario]] Please justify why "enabling legislation" merits to be in this article. After you've done that, please justify why "enabling legislation" merits inclusion in the first paragraph. Please provide a use case where this information is useful. Are you aware that the first paragraph(s) of Wikipedia Articles are commonly re-used by web applications of all sorts? Now that you know this, please provide justification for "Enabling Legislation" being useful in mashup third party capsule-summaries that rely on Wikipedia for inputs. Please don't delete this paragraph until this matter is resolved. Thank you. [[User:StevenBlack|StevenBlack]] ([[User talk:StevenBlack|talk]]) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Enabling legislation== |
|||
I think you meant http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/E_14_1/E14_1_A.html, but I don't see the point of adding it either. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Did you know...== |
|||
... reverting umpteen-dozen changes you've made is a '''royal pain'''? |
|||
'''Please consider''' that if you find yourself adding the same information repeatedly to dozens of articles then, from an information architecture perspective, maybe you aren't doing a good thing. |
|||
Case in point: your recent addition of ''enabling legislation'' information to the lead paragraphs of '''at least 63 articles''' on Canadian educational institutions. |
|||
'''A better approach''' might have been to create '''one article''', titled say ''Enabling Legislation of Canadian Educational Institutions'' wherein we could list '''one reference''' to each provincial act, and then list the institutions either explicitly, or globally using a category. |
|||
'''This way, when a reference goes stale''' we can fix it in one place and, furthermore, if ''enabling legislation'' is worthy of expansion as an object of discourse, we can do it in one singular place. |
|||
'''This recent episode was a nightmare''' primarily because of ill-considered placement of information in lead paragraphs and, furthermore, most links were not verifiable if not outright 404. That is outrageous. '''Please don't do this again'''. |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
[[User:StevenBlack|StevenBlack]] ([[User talk:StevenBlack|talk]]) 03:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:34, 15 May 2010
Re: St._Lawrence_College,_Ontario Please justify why "enabling legislation" merits to be in this article. After you've done that, please justify why "enabling legislation" merits inclusion in the first paragraph. Please provide a use case where this information is useful. Are you aware that the first paragraph(s) of Wikipedia Articles are commonly re-used by web applications of all sorts? Now that you know this, please provide justification for "Enabling Legislation" being useful in mashup third party capsule-summaries that rely on Wikipedia for inputs. Please don't delete this paragraph until this matter is resolved. Thank you. StevenBlack (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Enabling legislation
I think you meant http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/E_14_1/E14_1_A.html, but I don't see the point of adding it either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you know...
... reverting umpteen-dozen changes you've made is a royal pain?
Please consider that if you find yourself adding the same information repeatedly to dozens of articles then, from an information architecture perspective, maybe you aren't doing a good thing.
Case in point: your recent addition of enabling legislation information to the lead paragraphs of at least 63 articles on Canadian educational institutions.
A better approach might have been to create one article, titled say Enabling Legislation of Canadian Educational Institutions wherein we could list one reference to each provincial act, and then list the institutions either explicitly, or globally using a category.
This way, when a reference goes stale we can fix it in one place and, furthermore, if enabling legislation is worthy of expansion as an object of discourse, we can do it in one singular place.
This recent episode was a nightmare primarily because of ill-considered placement of information in lead paragraphs and, furthermore, most links were not verifiable if not outright 404. That is outrageous. Please don't do this again.
Thank you.