I have attempted to add information about MWT to [[WP:BLPP]] along with a series of formatting edits.
Unfortunately, It appears at the moment I can't be bold in a proposed project/policy I started without quick reversion. I am beginning to wonder if some editors are confusing ambiguous (or bad) process and organization with all process and organization is bad.
Organization and readability == Good. Organization and readability == Good. Organization and readability == Good.
-Electrawn
On 9/9/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm sure we could come up with a checklist for patrollers as to whether or not the article is notable, and I can code AfDing into the MWT version for BLP if there is such a need. In terms of quality control, we would really need the cleanup taskforce to take a look at the whole category for a week or so to bring articles up to scratch.
On 9/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/09/06, Amgine amgine@saewyc.net wrote:
For these and other reasons, en.wp should develop policy limiting living persons articles to primary career facts and academic achievements, current positions held or endeavors, and minimal personal facts. By presenting a minimal set of biographic facts the community can circumvent a large number of internal and external conflicts, whilst avoiding maintenance issues and keeping the articles relevant until such time as the subjects may be viewed in historical context.
And, of course, [[WP:LIVING]] has pretty much from its creation said what you're asking for here: facts in the article need to be relevant to the subject's notability.
(removed developers from the cc:, as I can't see them caring about an editorial policy issue)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l