| Revision as of 16:14, 11 August 2011 editJorgePeixoto (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,199 edits →Article too big← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:50, 8 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. |
| (128 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{Sanctions|1= Imposed by community discussion {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|416094200|here}}.}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|action1date=12:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Abortion|class=Start }} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion/GA1 |
| ⚫ |
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=start|importance=low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=listed |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=start|importance=low }} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=464860347 |
| ⚫ |
{{WPReligion|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|dykdate=27 August 2011 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|dykentry=... that after 26 nuns signed ''''']''''', the ] stated that all but two had recanted, leading 11 others to issue a statement of solidarity denying that they had done so? |
|
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy| importance= low|class=start| comprehensiveness= | sourcing= | neutrality= | readability= | formatting = | illustrations = }} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|topic=Politics and government |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|listas=Catholic Statement On Pluralism And Abortion| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Abortion}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low }} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ab}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==File:MargaretTalking.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion== |
|
|
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}--> |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <!--IMAGES--> |
|
|
An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status'' |
|
|
<!--/IMAGES--> |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review ] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to provide a ] |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
== Image of the advertisement == |
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
I have ProQuest access, so I can get an image of the ad. It's obviously not public domain, but does it add to readers' understanding of the topic (justifying a fair-use rationale)? Or is it only the text, rather than the structure, layout etc., that is significant? ] (] ⋅ ]) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
:I think it would be very helpful to see the page as a fair-use image. ] (]) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't overly love dealing with that sort of thing (everything I've uploaded is public domain) so should I e-mail it to you? ] (] ⋅ ]) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
== Article too big == |
|
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206232249/http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_Responsepdf.pdf to http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_Responsepdf.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
It is arguable that this article is not even notable enough to be in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
But even if it remains, I humbly suggest for its size to be cut down. It is horribly |
|
|
big. Big articles are harder to verify. Of course, sometimes you can't help but |
|
|
writing a big article, such as when writing an article about ]. |
|
|
This is because there is a lot of notable information to be said about Washington, |
|
|
and dozens or even hundreds of Wikipedians care about ], so it will |
|
|
be verified even if its big. |
|
|
But in the case of this New York Times ad, we have two conditions |
|
|
1) The article is pretty big and therefore time-consuming to verify |
|
|
2) Few people will care about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
Therefore, the chance of misinformation appearing here is pretty big. |
|
|
Would you please trim it down? I know you had a lot of work putting all |
|
|
this together, but please, trim it down. -- ] (]) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
:No, it is the size that it is because of the good sources. What's this about misinformation? Explain. ] (]) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Misinformation is any false information. Misplaced Pages is full of it. The bigger the article, the smaller the chance that people will verify each sentence is in the source, and each source is reliable. Therefore, the bigger the article the greater the chance of misinformation. On the other hand, the greater the amount of Wikipedians that care about the article, the greater the chance that it will be verified. In short: an article few Wikipedians care about should be small. -- ] (]) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Do you actually have any productive comments to make about the article? Are there errors you have found? Do you think it is unnavigable? Do you think it could be better organized? "It's just too big, man <small>because we should keep our coverage of Fake Catholics to a minimum even when we have dozens of excellent sources</small>" is not a complaint that anyone can legitimately act on to improve the article. ] (] ⋅ ]) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Is there any hope for you to quit being cynical, playing the victim card, and assuming bad faith? -- ] (]) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
.svg)
