Talk:Miss World 1987: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:02, 26 January 2016 editNorthamerica1000 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators708,032 edits →Judges section restored: +c← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:24, 26 January 2016 edit undoThe Banner (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,954 edits →Judges section restored Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	:Sources or not, the list of judges is completely irrelevant and in fact fancruft. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)		:Sources or not, the list of judges is completely irrelevant and in fact fancruft. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
	::The Miss World events are viewed by millions of people when they occur, and dismissing content about the judges as "irrelevant" or "fancruft" does not hold water per the popularity of the event. You use the same rationale for all content you remove from various articles, but never address my rationale for the content's merit. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)		::The Miss World events are viewed by millions of people when they occur, and dismissing content about the judges as "irrelevant" or "fancruft" does not hold water per the popularity of the event. You use the same rationale for all content you remove from various articles, but never address my rationale for the content's merit. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
			:::Seeing the way you are following me around, I have difficulty with assuming good faith from your side. Especially because you often add related sources to prove something or comes with unsubstantiated stories as "It's very likely that offline sources are available that provide coverage.". Just prove it with reliable, independent sources conform ]. But I see nothing coming... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:24, 26 January 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Beauty Pageants

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Untitled

I don't get the scores. In the preliminaries, Trinidad and Tobago and Sweden got higher scores than Guam, yet Guam made it to the Top 12. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.72.178 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Judges section restored

I have restored the judges section content (diff). The content is directly relevant, significant and of importance relative to the article's topic, and its omission reduces the quality of the article. Information about the people who judge the performance of a large number of contestants in a contest is highly relevant. Provision of information regarding the judges is credible to provide a balanced overview of the event. It's very likely that offline sources are available that provide coverage. Internet coverage of 1987 events is not plentiful, because the internet was not in widespread usage at this time. North America 06:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources or not, the list of judges is completely irrelevant and in fact fancruft. The Banner talk 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Miss World events are viewed by millions of people when they occur, and dismissing content about the judges as "irrelevant" or "fancruft" does not hold water per the popularity of the event. You use the same rationale for all content you remove from various articles, but never address my rationale for the content's merit. North America 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing the way you are following me around, I have difficulty with assuming good faith from your side. Especially because you often add related sources to prove something or comes with unsubstantiated stories as "It's very likely that offline sources are available that provide coverage.". Just prove it with reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. But I see nothing coming... The Banner talk 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories: