Talk:Manliness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manliness article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

See Talk:Manliness (book). Biscuittin 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for speedy deletion

Summary: there's one search term "manliness". There are two possible referents for the term: manliness=masculinity and Manliness (book). There are only two namespaces required — Manliness and Masculinity. No DAB page or redirect is needed, only a DAB link at top of the article at this namespace.

At the moment, if someone types "manliness" they come to this namespace. What they probably want is found at the Masculinity article (no need for two articles on same subject). There was simply a redirect here until a book was written in 2006. Some will now want Manliness the book if they type "manliness", but are unlikely to know to look for Manliness (book). They might as well get the book straight away, since the topic of manliness is unlikely to ever need this namespace as it can be adequately covered at Masculinity. If ever further disambiguation is required, Manliness (disambiguation) already exists. The article on the book can be moved back to Manliness (book) if a hypothetical new topic has a better claim to being at this namespace.

Please note the current page at this namespace has little or no content, and the same for the edit history. Moving Manliness (book) to this namespace would be really appreciated.

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of removal of sourced material

Since it is an important courtesy to build consensus before removing sourced material (with certain exceptions), I'm notifying that I'll be removing the quotes from the press currently cited in the article. I don't doubt the comments were made, it's just that they're irrelevant in an encyclopedia. They don't present an argument, just opinion, hence it's not information in this context. Wiki articles are not polling booths where published writers cast votes. It's a place where claims are made, and counter claims made, both citing evidence or logical relationships.

I will however, be attempting to find the arguments presented by the writers cited and used to justify their opinions. We need to give our readers arguments to evaluate, not simply a chance to take sides or count heads.

Anyone, please feel free to do this work on the article, I've only got so much time. The links are already there, see if you can summarise the arguments made in the short reviews they reference. If all the reviewers agree on certain points, it's better we make those points, and footnote which writers line up behind them. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)