| Revision as of 03:44, 20 December 2014 editLevelledout (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,042 edits Formatting change← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:02, 25 December 2014 edit undoTheNorlo (talk | contribs)638 edits →TheNorlo ban request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::{{u|AlbinoFerret}} I did not clear the difference in explanation on "uses" with Albinoferret but in my opinion, any interpretation of "uses" would be a good first section. I favor starting the article with an explanation of why the product is used, how it works, then physically what it is. These could be "uses" and "construction" sections. ]] 20:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | ::{{u|AlbinoFerret}} I did not clear the difference in explanation on "uses" with Albinoferret but in my opinion, any interpretation of "uses" would be a good first section. I favor starting the article with an explanation of why the product is used, how it works, then physically what it is. These could be "uses" and "construction" sections. ]] 20:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::{{ping|User:Bluerasberry}} I dont have a problem with a simple section called Uses that basically follows the first paragraph in the lede without all the "aerosol" definitions being first. I think we can come to an agreement on the wording relatively quickly. If we need wording for now just use the first paragraph in the lede and we can modify it later. ] 20:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | :::{{ping|User:Bluerasberry}} I dont have a problem with a simple section called Uses that basically follows the first paragraph in the lede without all the "aerosol" definitions being first. I think we can come to an agreement on the wording relatively quickly. If we need wording for now just use the first paragraph in the lede and we can modify it later. ] 20:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == TheNorlo ban request == | |||
| Hi there, please feel free to support or oppose the concerning me. Thanks. ] (]) 01:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:02, 25 December 2014
| Archives | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sections
Can you please alter the sections to reflect what BR and I agreed to. Put Usage first and we can work out the language next. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've read through the discussion and it definitely would seem to me that whilst you were proposing Usage (statistics) to go at the top, Bluerasberry was proposing that Uses (Medical indications etc) should go at the top of the article. I'm not sure whether the two of you realised at any point that you were both referring to entirely different sections. However I note that there was eventually some agreement that a section called Usage should go at the top. I will change the edit request but am going to make clear that this issue of Usage/Uses still needs to be sorted out.Levelledout (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret I did not clear the difference in explanation on "uses" with Albinoferret but in my opinion, any interpretation of "uses" would be a good first section. I favor starting the article with an explanation of why the product is used, how it works, then physically what it is. These could be "uses" and "construction" sections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: I dont have a problem with a simple section called Uses that basically follows the first paragraph in the lede without all the "aerosol" definitions being first. I think we can come to an agreement on the wording relatively quickly. If we need wording for now just use the first paragraph in the lede and we can modify it later. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret I did not clear the difference in explanation on "uses" with Albinoferret but in my opinion, any interpretation of "uses" would be a good first section. I favor starting the article with an explanation of why the product is used, how it works, then physically what it is. These could be "uses" and "construction" sections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
TheNorlo ban request
Hi there, please feel free to support or oppose the ban proposal concerning me. Thanks. TheNorlo (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)