Jump to content

Talk:Earth mysteries: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 31: Line 31:
:'''Oppose''' related concepts, but one is effectively the superset of the other, and they are sufficiently different to justify two articles. Some rewriting to make the relationship clearer may be required. [[User:Artw|Artw]] ([[User talk:Artw|talk]]) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' related concepts, but one is effectively the superset of the other, and they are sufficiently different to justify two articles. Some rewriting to make the relationship clearer may be required. [[User:Artw|Artw]] ([[User talk:Artw|talk]]) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


:''Oppose'' I am going to be working on this article, I will add many references. [[Special:Contributions/212.219.63.252|212.219.63.252]] ([[User talk:212.219.63.252|talk]]) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I am going to be working on this article, I will add many references. [[Special:Contributions/212.219.63.252|212.219.63.252]] ([[User talk:212.219.63.252|talk]]) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:55, 1 November 2011

Cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards?

Please list them so this article can improve. If no, will be removing tag. J. D. Redding 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (PS. it been tagged for a year without commnent.)[reply]

  1. The lead is vague to the point of vacuity.
  2. The article body is an arbitrary-seeming grab-bag of WP:FRINGE claims without either sources, underlying commonality (other than rejection by mainstream science), or in many cases any direct connection to the 'Earth' in the topic's title.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be a disambiguation page. The term in the narrow sense is equivalent to ley line, and in the widest sense to Forteana. --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Per above suggestions, formally proposing merge with Ley line. One notion, really, no need to go through the same explanation twice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: neither topic seems to have much WP:SECONDARY coverage, so combining them should bring a small improvement on that front. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above reasoning. Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose related concepts, but one is effectively the superset of the other, and they are sufficiently different to justify two articles. Some rewriting to make the relationship clearer may be required. Artw (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am going to be working on this article, I will add many references. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]