This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, perhaps you could Discuss this situation (per the BRD you have cited), rather than continue to edit war? I completely refute your suggestion that the very poor information an IP was leaving is "implicitly sourced to the works themselves". That is not how sourcing works at all. You have outlined wp:ORIGINAL RESEARCH instead. As per my initial rationale for removing the addition, this information is all presented below, and it is all linked to reliable sources. The addition by the IP was not. It is also poorly formatted and should not be on this page. Should you think this is a better way of presenting information, take the page to FL review to have it delisted and do it properly from scratch. - The Bounder (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, instead it would be better for you, as the proponent of removing accurate, pertinent information, why you believe this article is improved by removal of the information about which novels by Rohmer belong to which series -- information which is not "all presented below", as you inaccurately claim. Such information is commonly included in such lists. There is nothing wrong with sourcing uncontroversial information about a book to the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you're the type of editor who will throw BRD into an edit war until it's pointed out that you were the one that broke that (The IP B-ed, I R-ed, you Ignored Discussion And Edit Warred To Get your Own Way - (and since when is consensus decided by an involved editor on the basis that they support a second rate addition from an IP?) Fine: life is way too short to deal with such games. I have filed to have the FL status reviewed given such a poor addition. This fig leaf reference you have added is laughable: If you do not understand why, I suggest you take some time away from editing to learn what a reliable source is, and how it should be included. - The Bounder (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
