Talk:Childhood development of fine motor skills

ECE

Is this an ECE article or a biology article? (Early Childhood Education) This needs a complete rewrite.

• Indeed. This article is.. just awful. CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN there's nothing in the article besides children development junk. I vote for deletion of the entire article, there is nothing of worth here. Mr0t1633 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to second the previous opinions. I've gone to this page several times now, and it's still not about dexterity. It's about specifics about child/infant dexterity, which should be in a separate page of its own, if not just deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.55.165 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to the utter and complete lack, of any corrective measures towards this problem, I decided to Be Bold. I don't know what to write, so I simply removed the material that doesn't belong there, which is to say most of it. That should provoke some change ...unless it is simply reverted, though that would be foolish, due to what is mentioned above. This is supposed to be a page about "Fine motor skill", not "Children's development of fine motor skill". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.49.164 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! My daughter was using the info from the Fine Motor Skill page for a science fair project that is due tomorrow and now it has been deleted! Yikes! It was the one place we had found info on fine motor skills as they develop in children ages 3-10 - EXACTLY what her project is on. I am shocked that info can be deleted by just anyone. Bradgtr (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)VERY SAD THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED!

• I strongly disagree to simply removing content instead of trying to improve it, so I reverted back again. Lova Falk talk 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree in your assessment, that it wasn't an improvement ...and I could say the same for removing a line saying e.g. "This is gay" or a bunch of ads (indeed, there are examples from this page alone, looking at it's history), which is routinely preformed here on wikipedia. When there is irrelevant junk on a page, there is no attempt to "improve" it. It is removed. Period. If you have a problem with that, try adding a random school essay to a random page and see what happens to it. Unless you have any argument, for why the other information improves the page, or how it has any relevance or any reason for why it should be there... Removing the information was an attempt at improving the page. And it worked. Now you fucked it up, for no good reason ...with no intention of improving the page.--213.113.49.143 (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• It seems I am unable to revert the page, to its improved state, dooming it to stay as it is, and never to improve. Someone could have looked at the page, thought it needed more and added to it. Or it could have stayed as it was. Either option would make it more accurate. Either option would be better ...but no. Someone had to put the junk back in. Any and all comments here, are about how crap the page is. It is undeniably NOT about Fine motor skill. I made it BE about Fine motor skill and removed all the irrelevant junk. I am quite disappointed. How did adding that stuff back in, improve the page? Because if it didn't improve the page, you'd have no good reason to do it, now would you? Clearly improving Wikipedia-pages is not what is promoted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.49.143 (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Having read up a bit on Wikipedia policies on the subject, I can see why just reverting the page back, would be a bad idea (what with revert wars and all), but... FFS! I did a bold edit, with the backing of the consensus. I took out stuff that didn't belong on the page, and tried to make it as good as I could. I waited a long time, before making the edit, and put thought into it. In other words: I was completely justified in my edit and followed Wikipedia policy. ...and then someone goes in and seemingly due to a knee-jerk reaction, reverts it (i.e. making a major modification, in no way different from "simply removing content"), without any considerations about how that improves or worsens the page and despite it going against consensus ...and then the person in question disappears for several months! FFS, how long a holiday can you take! Do I really have to keep from making a revert, in these circumstances? There is no way to progress, as it is.--213.113.51.41 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate template

Why has {{globalize}} remained on here for so long? I had a look through the article, and it seems to be completely geographically neutral. Eventually I found the 2007 (!) edit where it was added. Just look at the edit summary and have a laugh. Nothing to do with globalising at all. Meanwhile, I've changed it to {{generalize}}. -- Smjg (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)