Talk:Christopher Layne

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Layne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523230311/http://www.csstoday.net/ywpd/Interview/28824.html to http://www.csstoday.net/ywpd/Interview/28824.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So what's the poppycock with the removal of the bibliography? Why are huge chucks of this page being removed without any sort of real reason? WTF is going on?

 * Talk here. 112.199.181.130 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I and editor User:Arjayay have removed the large list of external links, per guidelines at WP:External links. There was some discussion about this at User talk:112.199.164.233: I assume you're the same editor. As noted at that other IP user talk page, a reasonable bibliography, properly cited, is fine. But there's no need for such a large list of external links. Please see also WP:NOTLINKFARM. Thank you. Capewearer (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if I remove some of the external links, it's fine? 112.199.181.130 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think the removals might be contentious, then it's a good idea to discuss them at the relevant article talk page. What did you have in mind? Capewearer (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't even dare to answer my question on the external links being removed. 112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was fine before, when it was just a list of his books, and did not look like the output from a cuttings agency. It is a tiny article, just 2 or 3 lines, depending which version, with either 8 or 2 references. Swamping the article with 124 External links in the body, all in contravention of External links, could make it appear that there is very little to say about the man, his ideas, or his influence, so it has to be padded out to try and make him look more important. Such a list also contravenes undue "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, ..." If any of these articles have been influential, e.g. cited by other notable academics, in notable published works, they could/should be included - as in "His paper on X was cited by Professor Y as a major influence in his work Z" (with references, of course). It is not just a case of removing "some" of the external links, but almost all of them. What would be far more useful, would be to significantly amplify the article itself, with reliable published sources.  Until the article shows his importance and influence, I can't imagine anyone bothering to read a list of more than 8-10 works - Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule that bilblios are not allowed? 112.199.181.130 (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can imagine some people reading every single article on that bilblo page. So, you have limited imagination, you just raped the entire page?112.199.181.130 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)