User talk:Three: Difference between revisions
→Circle of Confusion: new section |
→Circle of Confusion: response |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
While I'm not a fan of the reference style in that article, Jeff is right that you shouldn't just change it. It presently has a clear separation between references and other kinds of notes, and it's not appropriate to merge those. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
While I'm not a fan of the reference style in that article, Jeff is right that you shouldn't just change it. It presently has a clear separation between references and other kinds of notes, and it's not appropriate to merge those. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
=== Response === |
|||
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. |
|||
I agree that arbitrary changes are useless shed painting, however, I disagree that this was an arbitrary change. I changed it because: |
|||
* The citation style used confuses internal links with links to notes at the bottom of the page |
|||
* The notes and references were already mixed e.g. comment about Kodak |
|||
Perhaps my edit wasn't well thought out and should have tried to separate notes from references, however, it did make worthwhile changes to the document. A complete revision of my edit does not lead to a net improvement to the document. |
|||
I have now reached my apathy limit as far as this is concerned, and I will leave the page in its confusing state. [[User:Three|Three]] ([[User talk:Three#top|talk]]) 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:09, 27 November 2008
Welcome!
Please discuss, comment and criticise politely.
Circle of Confusion
While I'm not a fan of the reference style in that article, Jeff is right that you shouldn't just change it. It presently has a clear separation between references and other kinds of notes, and it's not appropriate to merge those. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Response
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning.
I agree that arbitrary changes are useless shed painting, however, I disagree that this was an arbitrary change. I changed it because:
- The citation style used confuses internal links with links to notes at the bottom of the page
- The notes and references were already mixed e.g. comment about Kodak
Perhaps my edit wasn't well thought out and should have tried to separate notes from references, however, it did make worthwhile changes to the document. A complete revision of my edit does not lead to a net improvement to the document.
I have now reached my apathy limit as far as this is concerned, and I will leave the page in its confusing state. Three (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)