From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Danny Bubp is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions. |
Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
- To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification.
- After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
[edit] Myth Subsection
I don't want to get into a big fight about this, but this because it is a single sentence it is why it is a subsection, as opposed to a section. If the problem is that it is a single sentence, we can write this compound sentence as two sentences.
I believe it should be separate from his biography, as this sentence does not directly relate to his biography. It corrects mis-information that is out there. --Asbl 19:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
One sentence, two sentences, it doesn't matter, subsections are totally unnecessary for such small bits of information, and as it directly relates to the matter being discussed immediately above it (the aftermath of Schmidt's comments), there is no reason for a heading to seperate the two paragraphs. I have rewritten the sentence to make the connection clear. Gamaliel 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Much better. I can live with this. --Asbl 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I'm glad we could figure this out. Gamaliel 05:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)