User talk:Curious brain

killingworth

You could probably cite the text as "Connecticut Historical Commission - Town of Killingworth historical sign, erected 1981" or something to that effect as the citation. BTW, nice work on the article. --Polaron | Talk 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

In general, trivia sections are to be avoided. Usually, facts found in trivia sections should either be integrated into the body of the text (if properly cited, notable, and encyclopedic) or deleted (if not). The fact that the town has only one traffic light is probably not notable, as that is true of many American towns. The unusual street names might fit into an eventual "characteristics" or "features" section. Then again, since Roast Meat Hill Road's name derives from an urban legend, you might have a hard time coming up with a reliable source proving that the legend exists. The point is: Wikipedia strives to be an intellectual exercise where scholarly material is integrated into coherent, readable and informative articles that present a narrative, not mere "facts". Personally, I don't see the trivia section as advancing that goal, though I promise not to revisit the article for a while - maybe we'll find a way for that section to conform with our policies. Biruitorul 04:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and I'm glad I persuaded you. Good luck in improving the article going forward. Biruitorul 06:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC criticism section

Hey, I see that you created a section entitled, "criticism." I was wondering, in the context of the deletion debate we both participate in, whether it may be a good idea to create an article on that subject spinning off from CNBC? An entire article on the Jon Stewart show issue seems to me a bit much, though I think it is a close question. I've voted to merge with a criticism of CNBC article. JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means an experienced editor on Wiki, so take my thoughts for what you will.

Personally, I would wait for the outcome of the AfD on the Cramer/Stewart article before I created any new articles on this topic.

About a separate 'Criticism of CNBC' article in general - if the AfD fails and the Cramer/Stewart article remains, maybe propose a merger into a more general article of "Criticism of CNBC" on the Cramer/Stewart talk page (provided there is enough information to warrant a generalized critique of CNBC)? That might be a way to go about it.Curious brain (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. That was an excellent reference you added to the Santelli article. Very much obliged. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]