Your thoughts on trimming article length
Taquito1 (talk) I started working on rewriting this article this morning, and one problem we are going to have is that some of the information offered here - details on the Indian policies of the Republic of Texas, for instance, under Presidents Houston and Lamar - are not offered anywhere else on wikipedia. We can condense many of the sections, (good comprehensive articles exist on the Battles of Adobe Walls, for instance, or the North Fork of the Red River, or the attack on Fort Parker!), but others we either have to keep intact, or write separate articles on the subject covered, such, as I noted, as the Indian Policies of the Lamar Presidency of the Republic of Texas. Before I get deeper in, do you have a preference for which way we do this? Keep the information here, or write a separate article on each of these areas? Thanks, JohninMaryland (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hello John! I read your comments here and at the discussion page, and sincerely appreciate your wish work collaboratively. I don't want to promise any particular work from myself, in case I can't meet my promises (expecting a new baby this week!), but I will see what you do and you will see what I do. Knowing that someone who cares is watching will help me see "both sides" (as if there were only two sides to an issue!).
- It occurs to me that, while neutrality is a primary objective, reaching that objective may be facilitated by addressing length. A shorter article is easier to work with. Thus, I would answer your question by saying that I prefer the concept of more short articles rather than fewer long articles; and that seems to be consistent with Wikipedia guidance. So I will take a look through it and try to spot opportunities for other articles. Not wishing to make a hobby out of this, if I initiate an article as a result, we will have to keep an eye on it to make sure it is not prematurely deleted due to being too "stubby". I guess taking a look at how the WWII and other articles manage to be so short would be useful. I love editing, but I really hate throwing away good material, so you are not likely see me deleting purely for the sake of length.
- NPOV issues I propose to address opportunistically--as they catch my attention.
- I think I'll make a few comments at the discussion page later.
- Hey Taquito1 (talk) ! First, allow me to congratulate you on the pending birth of a child! How wonderful! I remember the nights mine were born, (though it was longer ago than I would care to admit!) and they were some of the greatest nights of my life. Congratulations! As to the issue at hand, I have no problem approaching this from the direction you have indicated. Briefly, most of the sections have adequate articles in their own right, and can be trimmed without loss of information. I will have that ready by this coming weekend. Several of the sections however, most specifically: Indian relations during the First Houston, Lamar, Second Houston, and Jones presidencies, the Civil War years on the Plains, and the military analysis of the Texas-Indian Wars, lack articles that address the issues discussed. I can, and will, prepare articles on Indian relations during the First Houston, Lamar, Second Houston, and Jones presidencies. The other items can either be left in the current article - which will be MUCH smaller once the other sections are trimmed appropriately - or the subject of other, separate articles. What I propose is to do all the foregoing, and then see where we are, in terms of article length, next weekend. Your thoughts?
- For what it is worth, I am enjoying working with you. I think your points so far have been well thought out, and the edits good ones. I thought the Anderson quotes and theories should stay in, BUT, I agree with you that they were inappropriate for the opening paragraphs, and inappropriate in the context they were presented in. Hopefully, both problems have been rectified with their move. Take care, and together we will trim this article into far more appropriate, and less POV, language and length. JohninMaryland (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Taquito1 (talk) ! Hope you and the family are well. I will have the proposed rewrite done by saturday - I will find a way to post the draft (as a draft, not in the body of the article) so you can suggest changes, before attempting any sort of posting. I think you will be pleased. I have trimmed the length considerably, and along the line of changes you have already made, eliminated a surprising amount of POV language. I stress this is merely a proposed draft, and I hope you will take your time in reviewing it. So far I think you have done a nice job in your rewrites, and this is (hopefully) going to help. Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite begun, please check!
Greatings Taquito1 (talk) - I began the rewrite in the Texas-Indian Wars article by posting significant cuts in the article - but note only so much trimming is possible when the article covers a 55 year period, where a half dozen different wars were fought, (Council House Fight-Great Raid, Plum Creek era, Antelope Hills Campaign, Adobe Walls I with Carson's winter campaign, and more!). We either have to create additional articles for the Indian Policies of the First and Second Houston Administration, the Lamar Administration, et al, or leave significant information on each in this article, because it is nowhere else in the encyclopedia. At any rate, I trimmed what I could, reworded to eliminate POV phrasing, and tried to address the issues that you brought up. I stress again that to further reduce in size, we have to create several articles. Otherwise, I think the wording is now NPOV and at least the length has been reduced some - would you check the article, and if you are satisfied that your basic concerns on wording have been addressed with your rewriting the introduction, eliminating some wording, etc. would you consider lifting the tags? Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I'm wondering if you have access to a source which would confirm information you added to the article back in 2007? It looks plausible, but I haven't found it on the web except in mirrors.--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! You requested major cleanup, and I couldn't have agreed more. By the way, I'm looking for someone interested in proofreading Spanish-to-English translations if you know of someone. Thanks. - Ruodyssey (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Soluble Salt edits
I can consider your reedits in most cases as correct. Only in the Bresle test article you made Somers groze errors in the basic understanding of the principle of the measurement. If i get not directly edited and problemized again i will correct errors. This way we can assure the correctness of all the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoFrankhuizen (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Thank you for the many edits and improvements you made to the Detroit article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)|