Talk:JOB (rolling papers)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
JOB (rolling papers) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
[edit] Parent company material
I've commented out some material from the lead about the parent company. Nothing wrong with the content itself, just that it was misplaced. - brenneman {L} 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation style
Why was this done? While the newer style is not required per se I don't see any reason given for the changes. The <ref> style is much cleaner and easier to use. - brenneman {L} 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Previously asked and answered, but I'll resummarize: (i) less user friendly; (ii) less utility (page numbers, etc); (iii) not mandatory. For the numerous detailed complaints and drawbacks of the newer ref system see [1] as well as the guideline itself. Furthermore, your failure to seek consensus for the change with editors who are actually editing the article and adding references is directly contravened by the guideline: Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page For further information, you should review the following arbcom decision [2]. --JJay 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- We don't ask permission for everything we do here. (Please see WP:BOLD.) Especially for something as trivial as this tiny amount of refs.
- The older version is actually much more difficult than the new version, I don't understand your resistance. If you don't understand it, just ask and I'll explain it.
- Why did you repeat "not mandatory" when I said the same thing? Are you actaully reading what I say before you respond?
- The page numbers simply typed in but for in named refs, so if you want page numbers don't use named tags. This didn't have any.
- We have previously had the identical discussion and you were fully aware of my opposition to the new ref style [3], Therefore, I would encourage you not to switch ref styles without reason on articles where I am adding references. WP:BOLD does not override the requirement, as per the guideline, to seek consensus for non-required style changes of this type. I disagree that the new ref system is easier. To name a few, it complicates the task of adding references - something I do quite frequently. It adds extra reference coding into the article body , making it more difficult to write articles - something I do frequently. It makes it more difficult to review and edit all the references in a dedicated section. As I indicated, the problems with the style are spelled out at length in the guideline under the heading "Disadvantages and future improvements" [4]. The disadvantages of this ref system outweigh any advantages at this time. While awaiting the future improvements that may resolve these problems, I will not be using this alternative ref style. --JJay 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Previously asked and answered, but I'll resummarize: (i) less user friendly; (ii) less utility (page numbers, etc); (iii) not mandatory. For the numerous detailed complaints and drawbacks of the newer ref system see [1] as well as the guideline itself. Furthermore, your failure to seek consensus for the change with editors who are actually editing the article and adding references is directly contravened by the guideline: Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page For further information, you should review the following arbcom decision [2]. --JJay 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
