Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-01 Coffee table book
intro
[edit]Hello quarrelling wikipedians! I am a cabal-appointed fortune teller, but if you ask me about the cabal I will deny its very existence. I foresee this article descending into a vicious revert war, and I am offering my services to mediate. I have read both versions, and it seems like they are two sides of the same coin. My proposal is for elements of both articles to be included in the final article version, in other words, a perfect consensus. Reverts do not count as consensus. Remember, we're trying to create a good article here. In the meantime, I hope you will talk to me and let me know where you stand on this. To avoid cluttering this talk page, I suggest we move the conversation concerning these reversions to this page. This shouldn't be too big a deal; let's not let our tempers get the better of us. Thanks! Antimatter---talk--- 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What I like about one version
[edit]Here are two reasons why I prefer this version, which I will call Version #1 to this version, which I will call Version #2. First, Version #1 has references. Second, Version #1 has sub-headings. There may be other reasons why it is superior (or perhaps inferior) but I think those are positive aspects of Version #1 that should be retained in the final article. Thesmothete 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
They seem like the exact same article to me, with some minor differences in phrasing. I am inclined to say Article 1 has the edge in format and content. Article 2 seems to be more concerned with an episode of Seinfeld than coffee table books. There is already a section in another article about that episode, and including the text from that seems redundant. I think a link would suffice. Otherwise, short of improving the article in general (history, cultural significance, etc.) there is little I would change. That's my thoughts so far. Any other opinions? Antimatter---talk--- 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)