Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ted Frank

What was wrong with the dates as breaks? And what is the theory behind the § symbols? I don't think they improved things. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they're dumb and am nominating them for deletion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand the hostility to the universal symbol for "section"... --ElKevbo 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No hostility here, just don't understand the theory, the sections seem somewhat arbitrary, whereas the dates (although ultimately arbitrary) had some clear logic to them. Just explain why THESE section breaks and not some other.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, it doesn't matter to me what the arbitrary section breaks are labeled in such a brief, transitory discussion. I'm actually a little glad to see the section symbols as a break from the labels typically used ("arbitrary section break 3").  I'm sure that if it's really important to you (or anyone else) you can change them without causing a fuss.  I sure hate to think that anyone would edit war over something as lame as the names of sections in a an AfD discussion...  --ElKevbo 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just the problem, there were section breaks based on dates, which made perfect sense to me, and someone changed them to § symbols. The edit summary was m(break up for ppl w/ small editors + §§ no longer conform to dates).  Huh? --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)