Talk:Pickard China/Archives/2011
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
NPOV
See:
) 05:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)References
The references need to be cleaned up - quotes in references aren't needed though you could add the quote in line in the body of the article. Format using
WP:MOS
- can either be used to support in line information or else added in references under a new sub section named "Further reading."
Content removed
Moved from User talk:Gmcbjames
- James, I know you're trying to be efficient and helpful, but the changes you just made to the Pickard China page undid the hard work of several contributors, me included.
- The content you removed was provided as a service after many requests for better information about collecting the china. What you called advertising refers to a book that is 15 years old, considered the "bible" for information about Pickard China, and it is by no means an advertisement. Rather, the information about the collectors club and the book is intended to assist the dozens of Pickard china owners who have sought information about Pickard and requested the information you removed.
- Please consult me before you do this kind of rewrite again. Your rationale seems rather arbitrary and the result is not appreciated.
- I am doing you the courtesy of asking you to remove your own edits before I do. Please respect our efforts to help amateur collectors and owners of Pickard china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digidanno (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- My intent is to create a good encyclopedic article on and about Pickard China, see WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, the article as written read as an advertisement for the Pickard China company and the Pickard collector's club, not an encyclopedic article.
- My intent is to create a good encyclopedic article on and about Pickard China, see
- Regarding the Pickard China book, I agree of the importance, however it should be used as a citation source. If the book is mentioned in the reference section, then it is discouraged from being added to a section such as "For further reading." For layout guidelines, see WP:MOS(Manual of Style). I imagined the book would be heavily cited, so I did not add a further reading section to include the book. In the section "External links," guidelines indicate a web site should only be listed once. So to have people know there is valuable information on the web site add a note to the external link such as "for reference on china marks, and ...."
- Regarding the Pickard China book, I agree of the importance, however it should be used as a citation source. If the book is mentioned in the reference section, then it is discouraged from being added to a section such as "For further reading." For layout guidelines, see
- Hopefully these comments will help in producing a good article and prevent the article from receiving tags (see ) 01:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your collaboration is important to make this article twinkle proof. My intent was not to discourage you, and I do hope you will continue to collaborate on this article. Your input will help make this article a good article or a featured article. I would have cited the Pickard book for in-line citations, however I couldn't find my copy until now. I will put in a section "Further reading" with the book for now, and if the book is cited in the body of the text then remove the section. Usually citations are only needed if anyone disputes a fact - though to be twinkle proofed, articles should have citations in-line. And thank you for your kind comment regarding "dusting off the piece." Everyone's help is needed to make this article shine.Gmcbjames (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)