User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 December

I'm fascinated. I BOTH agree AND disagree with most of what you say. I can't remember the last time I was in that position - if ever. "Food for thought". Thank you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which bits do you either agree or disagree with?

As an example,

Eric Brown (Royal Navy officer). From his key notability though, he's clearly Eric Brown (test pilot)

.

Or should he be Eric Brown (Fleet Air Arm officer) ? If we refine the cats and distinguish Navy pilots from Navy sailors, do we not only change categories, but also have to rename articles?! Even worse, this change is likely to be driven first by US Navy fliers (as there's more of them), pushing this "consistency" drive across navies into those where it's less and less important. That's one of the things I really dislike about "consistency" here, it's pushing the external consistency drivers (that ought to be handled through categorization) into making changes to articles. An article should exist and be named according to its own standards (guided by site-wide policy), not pushed around by the overlapping but still-narrow needs of the smaller groups. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I did not make my point clearly. I don't agree OR disagree, I BOTH agree AND disagree, and for me, this is a new experience that I am still thinking about.

Regarding all of the rest of your post: Yes, those are the sorts of issues I'm still thinking about. I have the feeling that I share those opinions, but as yet, haven't come to a conclusion.

I hope that's less unclear. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I find that I largely agree with you. (With some exceptions.) Thanks for making me think. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. "Objective Ministries" is well-known as a PARODY website akin to the "Landover" website. And an "editorial" from the "Jedi Council" of theforce.net website? There isn't much that could be less of a reliable source. The paragraph is based entirely on these two sources - one a parody, the other unreliable - so it needs to go. There are no actual fundamentalists who are protesting the "Landover" website or trying to get it shut down. Further reverts of the proper removal of this material will be reported. You don't have a leg to stand on, so please stop now. Seregain (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Tag it as needing citation by all means, but deleting a whole section as your first action isn't the right way to go. I'm not disputing that those two cites are anything but

WP:RS

, but a section that says "angry people got angry about this site" isn't the most controversial statement ever made on WP.

"Further reverts of the proper removal of this material will be reported."

Ooh, scary. Go right ahead. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see, contribs: Left Behind, Huckabee, Palin et al. You don't like anything that makes the parodied churches out to be the humourless bile-filled reactionaries that they are. Nice POV you're pushing there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Andy, Seregain is right. Objective Ministries is a parody site. It's purpose is to flesh out the Landover "legendarium". It's hardly appropriate to represent it as a legitimate locus of criticism, when in fact it is the opposite. Crafty (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Yes, they're not credible refs - no one claims they are. However he's deleting a whole section for a situation that just needs a {{

cn}} tag instead. Looking at his contribution history, it looks like whitewashing because he doesn't like US fundamentalist churches being described as intolerant. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I'll take another look. Crafty (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, Andy the section he's removed doesn't reflect the nature of the sources referenced. It claims that they are evidence of evangelical opposition to Landover, when in fact they aren't. Crafty (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So take the cites off altogether - that's reasonable. Deleting the entire content immediately, when we do accept use of {{

cn}} tagging for non-exceptional, non-BLP content, is unreasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with you and I'm gonna do that. But we better find some cites to back up the claim or else the par has to go. Capisce? Crafty (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that our "fix by editing before choosing deletion" policy should be ignored, in what's a non-BLP context? Do you think that {{

cn}} should ever be used, never be used, or just that it's somehow inappropriate in this case? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy, could I ask why you are replacing perfectly acceptable short cites with templates such as in the Napier Nomad article? There are several acceptable methods of citing, the only rule that I know of is that the format is consistent throughout an article. Your edit summary of 'standard refs' implies that something was wrong. We have lost the 'notes' and 'bibliography' headers in that article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to revert them if you think it's such a problem. That article has only a couple of refs, and very few cites to them: really just one cite per ref, as three consecutive page numbers in an encyclopedia hardly counts as separate citation. For a situation that simple, there seems little point in splitting refs and citations apart and presenting them as a separate bibliography. Bibliographies are certainly useful, but they're most useful in general-topic articles referencing general-subject textbooks, where there are many cites with targets distributed throughout the ref. When it's a narrow article citing single topic-specific articles in encyclopediae (as here), there's no real difference between the cite & the ref, so why present them to the reader in two chunks? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the correction on the article. My sloppiness in reading. Hope you have a great start to 2010! --Glasscity09 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]