Talk:Renault Symbol

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catabv23/Renault Symbol → Renault Symbol — As discussed on the Renault Clio talk page and on the Wikiproject Automobiles, and suggested by other editors, this preparatoin page should be moved away from user page to it's proper name. Catabv23 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – As the article stands, it does not properly reference under the WP:REFERENCE guidelines. If this issue is resolved, I don't any issues with it being moved to the mainspace. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 06:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The References section contains links to support all and every single statement in this article, only thing is that <ref> weren't used, as the references cover globally all the article. I think you're not being serious about this. Did you read the references in the last section? Catabv23 (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm serious, the article needs to be properly referenced, per WP:REFERENCE, before it should moved to the mainspace. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The style how references are added in the article can be changed ON THAT PAGE TOO! It is not a reason strong enough for the page not to be moved. And do consider canceling the whole thing if such ridiculous arguments are brought up. The article as it stands now IS strong referenced statement by statement, word by word and number by number. Catabv23 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As per WP:REF on dealing with unsourced material: If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the ^{[citation needed]} tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. This, to me, means go ahead and put up the article but do please add references so that your article won't be dotted with ^{[citation needed]}s. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added the mighty ref tags and this is for the last time I am ever creating anything on wikipedia, if working with such kind of people is supposed, pretending an article is unreferenced while it has the clearest list in the world of references at the bottom. And while there are many other articles that are clearly worse referenced. I am letting the mighty gu1dry create all the articles he thinks wikipedia should have. Should he consider such embarrasing attitude over one's work is normal. I could well have created this article instead of the redirection page of the Renault Symbol and then he would not have anything to say. Or then why don't you go there and delete all the pages that are not perfectly referenced as you pretend? This is just a too embarrasing attitude from user gu1dry in order to ever create anything again on wikipedia. Catabv23 (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Was it so hard to simply inline references, per WP:References guidelines? Did it take you hours, upon hours of work? No. When you create an article, you have to be prepared to be scrutinized, especially when don't follow Wikipedia policies & guidelines. All I'm seeing is a temper tantrum & when we all should be adults and if this is the reaction Wikipedia will get anytime things go to your plan or the rules are not bent for you, then maybe you shouldn't edit or at least some self-evaluation needs to be taken. Also when a new article is created, would you have a severally crippled article or an article that at least covers the basics? But now the issue with the references has been address, I can now support the move. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And Mr.choppers, on WP:Reference it states to use inline citations... 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with you in that of course we all strongly prefer inline citations - but just as we do not delete an entire article due to their absence, I don't think we should block such an article ante partum. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Did I propose the article be deleted? No, just that one basic issue needed to be addressed before it was moved into the mainspace. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think it is wrong to oppose on the grounds of no inline referencing. Most articles don't have any references so why don't we delete them all from the Wikipedia servers? Catabv23, if you copy the URLs to the end of each sentence where they are used (the same references can more than once), then I will fix them up for you by adding the author names, dates, titles, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the interest. I will look and maybe add them in place. I do know how to use those a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h refs but it looked better so I think. Catabv23 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article is plenty better as it stands than many other articles. And the best way to get an article improved is always to put it up in the mainspace. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.