User talk:SymlynX
Nothing interesting here.
Delistifying
[edit]In case you are interested, the reason for turning lists into prose is that they are ugly, boooring and inevitably grow too big. Take a look at WP:LAUNDRY, WP:EMBED, WP:LISTV. Even prose lists ("Examples include: X, Y and Z") are not terribly good but at least they are more compact. NicM 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
- Totally disagree. Sometimes prose may be a win, but often enough it isn't. --lynX
- Got any examples? NicM 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- Well the change you made in inter-server qualifies perfectly! ;) It looks like geek-speak getting proseified to look like we are less geeks. It's a geek topic and geekiness is practical sometimes. Or what about Jacques Breuer. The filmography is useful, even if no-one had the time or interest to write up a regular bio. Do you want to turn that into prose?
- Bibliographies, filmographies, discographies and "see also" sections which appear as seperate sections at the end of an article are tolerable. Using embedded lists in the text is not. The criteria for appearing is not usefulness, it is whether something is notable and encylopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, among other things. Nor is geekiness a criteria, if you want geek definitions for geek readers there is already the Jargon File, Wikipedia content should be accessible to as many general readers as possible. NicM 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- And such tolerable lists should be mininimised and preferably limited to significant work, there is already the IMDB and comparable sites for other fields, we don't need to recreate them here. NicM 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- Bibliographies, filmographies, discographies and "see also" sections which appear as seperate sections at the end of an article are tolerable. Using embedded lists in the text is not. The criteria for appearing is not usefulness, it is whether something is notable and encylopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, among other things. Nor is geekiness a criteria, if you want geek definitions for geek readers there is already the Jargon File, Wikipedia content should be accessible to as many general readers as possible. NicM 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
- Well the point is normal readers, in the case of inter-server, would most likely prefer a pragmatic list than hard to read prose. So it's the attempt of us geeks to not be geeky that doesn't work out. There's an irony to that. It's not like you turned a list into an article - you simply changed the formatting - now it is a harder to read list, that's all. A bit pointless effort it seems. :-) Why don't you look at it again, admit it, and change it back please.
- Lists are harder to read than prose, they don't flow as part of the text and lack context. This is all covered in WP:EMBED and the other guidelines. I don't see what geekiness has to do with anything, embedded lists are no better because they are technical than if they are not, and the original list in the article lacked any descriptions whatsoever, for most people it would just be a boring and confusing list of protocol names. NicM 17:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- No, I won't agree with changing it back. If there must be examples, then covering them as prose with at least some context is far superior to a list. A prose list flows better, is more compact, easier to read and better style, is more resistent to creep, and easier to reformat with other prose as the article expands. I have lots of books here on various subjects and none of them commonly use bulleted lists in the text, for much the same reasons, I suspect. NicM 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- Rather than having any kind of plain list, it would be nice to instead pick one or two examples and have a paragraph using them to illustrate the subject of the article. Just saying X, Y, Z are interserver (in any form) doesn't really add much to the article. NicM 18:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- No, I won't agree with changing it back. If there must be examples, then covering them as prose with at least some context is far superior to a list. A prose list flows better, is more compact, easier to read and better style, is more resistent to creep, and easier to reformat with other prose as the article expands. I have lots of books here on various subjects and none of them commonly use bulleted lists in the text, for much the same reasons, I suspect. NicM 17:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- Lists are harder to read than prose, they don't flow as part of the text and lack context. This is all covered in WP:EMBED and the other guidelines. I don't see what geekiness has to do with anything, embedded lists are no better because they are technical than if they are not, and the original list in the article lacked any descriptions whatsoever, for most people it would just be a boring and confusing list of protocol names. NicM 17:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
RFPP
[edit]I serviced your request at WP:RFPP. In the future, however, when you're listing an article you want (un)protection on please make a 4th-level section with the name of the article in the article links template (===={{la|ARTICLENAME}}====) so that admins and others can get to them easier. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article One-to-one (communication) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No references. Unable to determine what this stub is trying to be about. Best to delete and start over if necessary.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~KvnG 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Id file has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HeartGlow (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)