Talk:Propositional representation

Multiple Issues
This page is currently tagged with the following issues:

Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. (February 2011)

To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (February 2011)

Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (August 2009)

Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details. (March 2008)

Please improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (March 2008)

Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

I am looking for a way towards bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standards. As a starting point, are all of the above tags appropriate, or can some of them be removed? Opinions? Guy Macon 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This page needs to be brought up to Wikipedia standards or deleted as being unsalvageable. The last actual improvement to the content of this article was in January of 2008 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propositional_representation&action=historysubmit&diff=415291540&oldid=186566357 ). If any editors wish to step up to the plate and improve this article, this is your last chance before I nominate the article for deletion. You can start by answering the question of whether all of the tags are appropriate and whether some of them be removed. Guymacon (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not work on the basis of threats. The way to get this improved is to pull your finger out and improve it, not to order other volunteers about. The Google Books and Scholar searches that you linked yourself in your lying deletion proposal demonstrate that this is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please follow the Wikipedia behavioral guideline found at Assume good faith. Accusing other editors of lying and threatening is not helpful.  If you really believe that threats are being made, you should consider dispute resolution.


 * The Google Books and Scholar searches were autolinked by the WP:PROD template, not by me. Also, there is no need to fire up the flamethrower over a WP:PROD tag.  The tag is there to simplify things when nobody objects.  You objected, so WP:PROD is by definition not appropriate.  Deleting the tag is all that you needed to do.


 * I am encouraging (not ordering) others to improve this article for the simple reason that I am not qualified to improve it myself, as I would do if it was a page about engineering. If you think it is fine the way it is, please make that argument, and if the consensus is that it's fine, we can remove the tags. If you think the issues can be resolved given more time, please make that argument.


 * It often turns out that nominating an article for deletion has the happy result of the article being improved to the point where there is no reason to delete it. As a courtesy I am giving any editors currently watching this page a chance to improve it first.


 * Leaving the article with unresolved issues for three years is not an acceptable option. Guy Macon 21:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You chose to use a template that says that the searches linked by it show that the subject is not notable, so you, and nobody else, are responsible for its application to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific improvements for this article to suggest? Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for complaining about other editors.Guy Macon 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim was made above that "Google Books and Google Scholar searches demonstrate that this is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article", but the editor making that claim did not add any links to the article, which is totally lacking in citations and sources, and when I do those same searches I don't find evidence of notability, which requires as a minimum material about propositional representation, not just use of the term in passing. The material I found is consistent with an entry in Wictionary, not Wikipedia. Is anyone out there reading this even slightly interested in improving this article, as opposed to just being someone who monitors proposed deletions so he can oppose them? Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)