Talk:Dale Dodrill

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits of March 11
I am transferring a discussion from User talk:Palbert01 here, as it is more appropriate to have this discussion on the article talk page. The issue in question is whether this version or this version is more acceptable based on Wikipedia's policies. Below is my original statement and User:Palbert01's initial response, followed by a new one:

Hi Palbert01. I'm not sure what your objections are to my edits or why you keep reverting them, but mine are within policy. First of all, referring to him as "Dale Dodrill" under "Early life", violates WP:NAMES, which states "the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence [...] After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only." As for your other edits, they almost completely split the article up into fragmented, one-sentence paragraphs, which is a violation of MOS:BODY ("The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text [...] Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading") and WP:PARAGRAPH ("Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. [...] One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."). You may also benefit from reviewing Wikipedia:Narrative flow, which, although just an essay and not a policy, reflects traditional features of Featured and Good articles and cites several important policy precedents to back up its arguments.

As for your edit summary: "The original text is well within the wikipedia definitions. (Not true, see above). Paragraphs are to be short and express an idea (based on what Wikipedia policy, can you cite it? This would seem to directly contradict what I cited above). Your revisions actually create longer paragraphs and combine topics (yes, that is the point, it aids flow). While my writing may not be YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, that is not a wikiepedia criteria (Not true, see above, also no need to shout). See pages for Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach which are much longer and more detailed than Dale Dodrill for reference (Other stuff is just that - other stuff. Wikipedia is a work in progress, perhaps there are errors on those pages that have yet to be corrected or completely different contexts)." Unless you can provide me with actual policy-based arguments for your edits, they will be reverted, but in the interest of assuming good faith and not edit warring, I will await your reply. Canadian  Paul  17:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, My objection is that you have rewritten the article based on your personal preferences and not due to wikipedia guidelines. I previously noted that in all caps that you got hung up on as yelling rather than as emphasis.

The paragraph guideline states “Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus.” My paragraphs developed an idea or point. Your edits combined all paragraphs and points into a single paragraph per subheading. For example, you combined his marriage and business into a single paragraph. These are two separate topics that have been combined based on your preference...not wikepedia’s guideline...of having one paragraph per subheading. This is a common theme for your edits to the page.

Ultimately, your edits have lost the flow of the article. It may as well be a list of bullet points with no detail. This type of over zealous editing based on personal preference is why people stop contributing content and funds to wikipedia. Congrats!


 * Assuming good faith, I will respond to everything that is not a personal attack in your reply:
 * "My objection is that you have rewritten the article based on your personal preferences and not due to wikipedia guidelines." - Untrue, as demonstrated in my response above
 * "My paragraphs developed an idea or point." This cannot be done in a single sentence, which nearly all of your sentences are.
 * "These are two separate topics that have been combined based on your preference...not wikepedia’s guideline..." One could argue equally that splitting them is simply your preference. Except, as I have demonstrated, my "preference" is actually based in established Wikipedia policy, whereas yours does not appear to be.
 * "Ultimately, your edits have lost the flow of the article." Again, I strongly recommend that you review Narrative flow. Something cannot have a flow if every sentence is its own paragraph.
 * "It may as well be a list of bullet points with no detail." This more or less describes your version.


 * If you are still truly convinced that my version is based off of my own arbitrary preferences, I am happy to start a thread at WP:3O to get a third opinion from an uninvolved party, if we can both agree to abide by whatever decision is made by that individual. Please let me know what you think. Canadian   Paul  20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, rather than giving me your opinions, bullet point your issues with the article. A third party is obviously necessary as you have dismissed every point that I have made as being in contrast to wikepedia guidelines. I reality, they are just not your preference as I have given example.


 * I have gone ahead and listed the dispute at WP:3O. Canadian   Paul  21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input User Talk:Iffy. My issues with the "improvement" were with numerous topics covered in single paragraphs, example born/farmed/moved/high school/military all in one paragraph now. Example two, married/started business/sold business/wife and child died all in a single paragraph. The use of the name "Dale" was also overlooked in your evaluation that referenced this guideline. The Dodrill article was written in an essay style reflective of Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach that also include many of Canadian Paul's complaints. Which of you is going rewrite those pages and notify the watchers? At a macro level these vulture updates that don't add to the article, just "word-smith" the existing text are in bad practice. The changes are frequently completed by users just trying to pad their stats and with no intent to contribute anything to wikipedia.