Talk:The Record (North Jersey)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did forget to add Christie's party (republican) when added material later, after added McGreevey's affiliation. But obviously party affiliation often is mentioned in articles, and is relevant to show that the paper is not partisan and exposes issues from both party. Hope we don't have to do an RfC on this issue . Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These removals basically gut the article of content. I don't usually work on these articles and don't really care, just found it interesting a small publication broke the story. OK, McGreevy needs refs. But it seems to me that this is an absurdly high standard that multiple big media have to report on their breaking two stories. I don't have any more time for it, however, so unwatching article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, the point of mentioning any story would be the NEWSPAPERS impact on it, and not the actual story. And The Record cannot be used as a reliable source about how much impact it has. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal#Web_difficulties_at_NorthJersey.com_.28The_Record.29 and comment there. JackGavin (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad:, you seem to have an interest in this subject, greatly appreciated. The revert on the naming was warranted, and shows you have local knowledge. I just don't understand where the term "mullet point" comes from. I've never seen it used, and couldn't find a source. I have only seen the term "bullet point." I also wanted to discuss your removal of said bullet points in favor of prose style. I used bullet points when writing that section, because the density of events in each period, and the variability of them, made it harder to quiclkly read and understand. The bullet points allowed each event to be easily picked out, and, for someone just skimming the article, to easily skip past the level of detail while still getting a sense of how much change was going on. I would like to bring the article back to that format, unless there is a good reason not to. Dovid (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"mullet point" was just a typo. As for using prose not bullet points, I just think that unless it's a true list, prose should be used instead of bullet points. It's not a list article, it's body text, and bullet points have a choppy, undesirable quality. See

MOS:PROSE for more. oknazevad (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]