This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ali Marpet appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Question for Yankees
editWhy? It is helpful to the reader. Who is "we?" It does not include me. Is it a broad consensus, or three editors or something like that? Headings like this are helpful to the reader ... this is many paragraphs long, and deserves to be broken up. I disagree with the revert. --2604:2000:E016:A700:8C1C:E43B:94E9:3AC2 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- It is being removed by numerous editors over numerous NFL layer articles.--Yankees10 00:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- What's the rationale? It is ridiculous to do so here -- this is a 10 paragraph section, that lends itself to being broken up into two. WP embraces the use of sections. ("A page can and should be divided into sections"). Whatever the "numerous editors" have in mind, application to a 10 para section that lends itself to a natural break strikes me as poor judgment. I'm going to revert unless I hear a rationale that in such cases it makes sense, or there is wider adoption of its application in such circumstances, since it does not make sense to me. In some other circumstances, I can see it making sense, but not here - we have to be nice to readers. --2604:2000:E016:A700:8C1C:E43B:94E9:3AC2 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever.--Yankees10 01:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- What's the rationale? It is ridiculous to do so here -- this is a 10 paragraph section, that lends itself to being broken up into two. WP embraces the use of sections. ("A page can and should be divided into sections"). Whatever the "numerous editors" have in mind, application to a 10 para section that lends itself to a natural break strikes me as poor judgment. I'm going to revert unless I hear a rationale that in such cases it makes sense, or there is wider adoption of its application in such circumstances, since it does not make sense to me. In some other circumstances, I can see it making sense, but not here - we have to be nice to readers. --2604:2000:E016:A700:8C1C:E43B:94E9:3AC2 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)