Talk:Pro-Test/Archive 2

message: I've unarchived this talkpage. It's all far too recent and not really enough to need archiving. I couldn't follow the article's history without referring to the talk. Archiving at this point gives a strong impression of not wanting some of the discussion to be readily seen. If the weekend's events prompt major revision of the article, then archiving might become appropriate. Apologies to Sean for reverting him. Grace Note 09:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unarchived

message: I noticed that an earlier user 'unarchived' this page and am wondering why? The page may be recent but the fact remains that it is 90kb in size - which is longer than it should be. Just because it is relatively recent compared to most talk pages does not mean it should not be archived. If this is followed then we will end up with a talk page of a size > 500kb in size. This is unacceptable as it rules out anyone on a non-high speed connection from talking on this page.
I propose we use a 2 week rule on this talk page in order to try and keep it short and loadable. It is perfectly reasonable to reference things in archived pages. -Localzuk (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I unarchived it. I have a name and if you have a problem with my doing it, I have a talkpage you can write to me on. I left a note identifying myself and explaining what I had done and why. The user who archived it chose a particularly inopportune time to do so, because in effect he hid discussion on an ongoing edit war. I'd suggest that it's better, when you are a combatant in an edit war, which is being discussed on Talk, to allow someone else to make the decision that the page needs archiving. Grace Note 00:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Hope people can live with my new first para. This addresses my concerns in large part. Only thing that nags at the moment " Pro-test is the first group of its kind in the United Kingdom." I thought I saw a Guardian article to the effect that after years of animal-rights groups protesting this is the first counter group, but I can't find it. 
Having done this, I'd also like to merge the large second paragraph into background and leave the intro as the first and third paragraph. ? Marskell 09:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. See Sunday Times Focus piece above. The teenager is of far greater interest than the group. Also, the writing is suffering from this constant back and forth, changing quotes, extending descriptions, changing the focus. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually about to suggest that (then read your request). It would read far better as part of the background section, at present it simply clutters up the introduction (which ideally should be fairly short). --ProTestOxford 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, intros should not ideally be fairly short. They should ideally highlight the main issues and give a good overview of the subject. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. As noted earlier by someone else, that particular paragraph is not one of the main issues. It can safely be put into the background section. I disagree that the founder is the main focus of the group, I believe the group's activities are now (they're certainly more newsworthy). --ProTestOxford 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Slim, your edits have tidied the intro up significantly. We probably don't need to move it now. Well done. --ProTestOxford 10:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Guardian quote and source is there, but lower down. --ProTestOxford 10:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both are of interest, but I do not feel that he is yet sufficiently notable for a Laurie Pycroft article to be created. I think the article is fine as it is (other than that I'd still argue that the rise of the pro-testing movement is a current event). It would be nice to get some verification of the Gap Year vs Drop-out issue.Hynca-Hooley 12:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to add my thanks to Marskell for finding a way around issues of contention. Rockpocket 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: This page has become very pro-Pro-Test. We keep adding quotes saying how wonderful they are, including from the Sun of all places. We have to start reining it in a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: are there any sources not saying how "wonderful" they are? If there are then putting them on would be a good idea but I really have looked and found none, bar the SPEAK attack on Pycroft, which we already have in further reading. --ProTestOxford 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the two quotes and moved up the other Guardian quote. "First of its kind" strikes me as notable even if the rest of the sentence is generic. Marskell 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV