Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis

message: To start things off, how would you propose fixing the current AfD system? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: I added this section, but now I'm not sure it still belongs here, according to the brief description at the top of the page. So feel free to remove it. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's not the same subject.  It's an active issue but out of the scope of this discussion.--Father Goose 00:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed guidelines

message: ===Citing sources===
Messy, messy situation with REF versus Harvard referencing, and confusion with Wikipedia:Footnotes material.
:I personally favor Harvard referencing, but I think I am in the real minority.  Articles should be consistent, but I don't have a problem with WP using both.  However, we need to make clear that when using REF one cannot use ibid or op cit - some people do and this leads to disaster as soon as someone else edits and adds new sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from project page; not content-inclusion related 

message: Messy, messy situation with REF versus Harvard referencing, and confusion with Wikipedia:Footnotes material.
:I personally favor Harvard referencing, but I think I am in the real minority.  Articles should be consistent, but I don't have a problem with WP using both.  However, we need to make clear that when using REF one cannot use ibid or op cit - some people do and this leads to disaster as soon as someone else edits and adds new sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing sources

message: This guideline should say something, a little, about lists. Those other pages that will deal with lists, including any proposed guideline that gets up, have the main content of the advice on lists. This guideline should refer appropriately to the list guideline(s).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean WP:ROC should say something about lists?  I agree, I just don't know what it should say yet.  Ideally, some kind of list content guidance will emerge elsewhere on Wikipedia, and ROC can reference that.  User:Sidatio/Conversations/On_list_guidelines appears to be the most active discussion on that subject.--Father Goose 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that's what I mean, though I did Forget to sign. (Thankyou, SineBot.) But the discussion you refer to, at the userpage, has got me confused, as have th other ones I mentioned above. And I will try to keep on topic , on the topic of thispage. Lists are a lesser issue here. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like this discussion, or part of it, has now shifted to User:DGG/unified.  I don't mind where it's being held, just as long as we're having it.  You should add a thread about the "lists" issue to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content (I did once before, at Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content/Archive 1#Relevance of lists, but It Was Not Being Permitted at that time).--Father Goose 05:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists (and proposed guidelines)