Talk:Xenu
Note[edit]
See also Featured Article at English Wikipedia - w:Xenu. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup tag[edit]
I noticed a cleanup tag was added to this page, with zero explanation provided as to why on the talk page. Instead of a cleanup tag, let's please engage in a polite and constructive discussion here on the talk page as to how to better improve the page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand this notion of yours that adding a cleanup tag is somehow not polite or constructive. That is exactly what the tags are for - to highlight pages needing some work. And why must we have the same conversation about this page as we had about the OT VIII page? I assumed that since we already discussed the issues with that page, that there was no need to repeat the same discussion here. But if we must, I believe the problems are the references and too many subsections. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which references? All of them? Okay. I'll start a good faith attempt at compromise and remove the References. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking which references? Do you not recall the discussions already held just today?? I feel as if we start over each time. Removing them is of course a good start. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's just my personal opinion not to have completely unreferenced unsourced uncited text, I think it's just irresponsible and silly. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a proper characterization of my point: the better way to do it would be to have an intro that did not contain such statements that require references. In fact, with respect to this page, I would trim the intro to just the first paragraph (and let the reader go to WP if they wish to learn more), as we generally try to have a fairly limited intro. My point was that the use of a reference section is discouraged and we tend to use interlinear citations for quotes. Intros should, in my opinion, not even require this. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that specific suggestion! I appreciate you being more specific! I really do! Very very much! I will make a 3rd good faith attempt at compromise with you about the Intro, and I'll go ahead and make the edits you suggested. Once again, thank you for being specific! -- Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a proper characterization of my point: the better way to do it would be to have an intro that did not contain such statements that require references. In fact, with respect to this page, I would trim the intro to just the first paragraph (and let the reader go to WP if they wish to learn more), as we generally try to have a fairly limited intro. My point was that the use of a reference section is discouraged and we tend to use interlinear citations for quotes. Intros should, in my opinion, not even require this. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's just my personal opinion not to have completely unreferenced unsourced uncited text, I think it's just irresponsible and silly. -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Are you seriously asking which references? Do you not recall the discussions already held just today?? I feel as if we start over each time. Removing them is of course a good start. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which references? All of them? Okay. I'll start a good faith attempt at compromise and remove the References. -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
1st attempt at compromise = removed all References notes[edit]
1st attempt at compromise, I've removed all References and the Notes section, please see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
2nd attempt at compromise = removed Subsections[edit]
2nd attempt at compromise = removed subsections. Removed parent sect, removed sub-level formatting for daughter sects. Made daughter sects become upper level sects. Please see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
3rd attempt at compromise = trimmed Intro sect[edit]
3rd attempt at compromise = trimmed Intro / Lede section, per suggestion above on this talk page. Thank you for the specific suggestion, most appreciated! Please see diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)