Talk:The Wheat Field

message: Evidently it's asked to much to have more than three minutes between the start of a fresh page with a stub and its deletion. --RPD 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a work in progress, so there's no point in merging it. Might as well leave it there for now to stop someone else slapping it on, but when the article's bigger, it can be removed. Tyrenius 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for your patience 

message: I removed the merge tag suggesting merging with Vincent van Gogh as the main article is already large, and there is a lot more that can be said about the works.  There are plenty of pages devoted to a single painting. Stumps 07:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hey guys ... let me state this friendly and with no flames.  I place the merge tag on this article as part of my New pages patrolling efforts which, like efforts of all new page patrollers, seeks to tag or delete new pages that don't mean Wikipedia's subjective criteria.  It's amazing how many non-notable biographies, advertising, and outright nonsense is created -- and as dozens of new pages are created every minute, hard to keep up with.
The challenge of pages such as this (in its original form) is that as a single sentence, it offered no meaningful information.  It certainly does now.  However, I've always been under the impression (after getting whacked when I first arrived here and started creating pages) that articles should be developed inside User Pages first, and brought into the Main Space only when fully developed.  That's not to say stubs can't exist, but there does seem to be some critieria for them, as listed at Wikipedia:Stub.  Specifically, the guideline states "[The stub] must be long enough to at least define the article's title and its meaning in order to appear in Wikipedia." Further, it cautions that "small articles with too little information may end up being nominated for deletion or be merged into another relevant article.", which is exactly what happened to the original version of [Wheat Field].
Now, after that long-winded policy lesson what definitive thing do we have?  Well, nothing actually.  Guidelines are just that -- guidelines, not policy, and interpretation of what is and is not acceptable is varied.  Yet, knowing that improper articles not tagged quickly may remain in the Main space, and not knowing where The Wheat Field as a one-line stub was or was not headed, I added a suggestion based on the current status of the article and then wrote on the author's user page that it appeared that more was forthcoming and, if so, the merge tag could be removed.
Anyway, this is a super-long four paragraph diatribe to basically say, that tags placed on very new articles by new page patrollers are done with the best of intentions and may not always be accurate.  Discussions are always valuable and tags can easily be removed.  At the end of the day, the quality of the articles is improved as is the entire Wikipedia encylopedia.  Thanks for reading and understanding. --CPAScott 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you I was not intending to be sarcastic, merely pragmatic and I meant what I said. I also appreciate the work you do and understand why you did it. Tyrenius 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, think that's more likely to be targeted at R.P.D.! ;) Tyrenius 03:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm and Merge tags 

message: There's one item from the original article that I've not been able to sort out:  whether each of the paintings of "The Wheat Field" is made from size 30 canvas.  I do find that he only selected size 30 canvas paintings for Les XX, of which was a wheat field paintings, but that's as far as I've gotten. Is there any way to sort that out?
For the time being I pulled that out to lift the "unreferenced" template, but it can put back when that info is verified.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 30 canvas