Content deleted Content added
Auntieruth55 (talk | contribs) →Deletions of details: leave it in |
|||
Line 171:
::I generally fall toward the latter of the two positions highlighted by Tom. This is also the general attitude of editors who write FA biographies, it seems. Have a look at any number of FA bios ([[Nikita Khrushchev]], [[William IV of the United Kingdom]], or [[John Diefenbaker]], for instance) and you will see similar level of detail. It's probably nothing unique to biographies - I'm sure all of Ucucha's FAs on rats have more detail than the average paper encyclopedia entry on them.
::In general, any large scale change like this to a Featured Article should be discussed ''beforehand'' on the article talk page, since the current version represents consensus for what the article should contain, how it should be structured, etc., and the opinion of one or two editors does not trump that. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 10:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
:::*I think I've made itclear that I don't do "diffs" well. Generally speaking, I object to detail being deleted as inconsequential. I don't think it is. I would have enjoyed also reading about Mölders' second wife being his superior's wife (widow?) and that she was 5 months gone when they married. Delete material because it's libelous or whatever, and perhaps the info on the wife and baby would have been. As for Ucucha's rat articles, they are definitely heavy on detail. The joys of an online encyclopedia is that we can do that, and not have to worry about the cost of paper or printing, much less postage. Biography articles I edit are always jammed full of the lovely little details that make a person seem human, that illustrate character and foibles, etc. [[User:Auntieruth55|auntieruth]] [[User talk:Auntieruth55|(talk)]] 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
| |||