User talk:JRG/List of Australian Presbyterians

anybody object if i change the layout to this page? Other lists have names seperated from their occupations by brackets, commas, or in a table. As it stands, I find it hard to distinguish from surnames and occupations in some circumstances. WotherspoonSmith 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)WotherspoonSmith

Go for it. This was a pretty simple rewrite of a list by the Uniting Church that I contributed early on in my Wikiexperience. Any way of making it better is welcomed. Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
This isn't a copyvio, just a badly sourced list from one page of Presbyterians. Surely this can have some different sources added to take this away? JRG 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even look? It is a wikified cut and paste from the website.  Even the author of the article admitted that's what he had done.  --Steve (Slf67)talk 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And let me do so here too. It was an ingorant mistake I made when I had just started editing. We can use the original website for reference, and as articles are created on the people mentioned they can be added to Category:Australian Presbyterians. Blarneytherinosaur talk 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We can have a list as well, though. A list differs from a category. JRG 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A list differs from a category. True. This list title suggests it's all Australian Presbyterians. That is not a suitable use of a Wikipedia article. The reference is someone's opinion of some notable people who were also Presbyterian. That's original research, even if it was done for another website. I have no problem with this being replaced by a referenced list of people who are notable because they are/were presbyterian. If it's just a list of wikipedia articles about people who happen to have also been Presbyterian, that's what categories are better at as they get automatically updated. --Scott Davis Talk 11:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)