Talk:Tony Scherman

Collections

The collections section is better in list format, moving back to that format. Per the ANI and clear warnings from administrators, I would caution Maybeparaphrased to step back and consider his/her actions. It makes little sense that the editor a) nominates the page for deletion then b) begins removing references, formatting and breaking good wikilinks addded in order to retain the page. @Mackensen: HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

We disagree that it is a better format, Perhaps we should set up an RFC on the matter to get more opinions, Shall you or shall I? Maybeparaphrased (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybeparaphrased, I think you will be wasting everyone's time with an RfC on the list format. However, that seems to be your preference, so go ahead. Also please do not continue reverting as you are close to intentional edit warring. Also, while you are at it, you might withdraw the AFd you started, now that you're investing the time for an Rfc in the article! An Afd can amount to a big waste of time if the article is actually staying-- do you want it deleted or are you now wanting to keep it?. I truly do not understand your intentions. To me it would seem that given your actions your number one goal is to be as diruputive as possible to anything I do! Of course maybe I am missing something and you are actually trying to be helpful. Have a nice evening. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROSE talks about prose being preferred in articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The list format is appropriate here. Exhibitions are similar in nature to publications or a discography, where Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works applies.Mduvekot (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Coolabahapple, I see what you are saying about prose and appreciate your input. On the other hand, What Mduvekot says about lists might be in line with the children list exception. Personally, I'm for a list here, as you can quickly see all of the involved museums. Prose-wise a list of ten museums ends up being a difficult to read, and it's a boring piece of prose. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HappyValleyEditor, i see what you mean:) Coolabahapple (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so we have three in favour and one against. Any other comments before we go back to list format?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that when you do a long list like that with wiki links and references it does not look very encyclopedic. The long list force the reader to scroll down. That makes the article difficult to read. A paper printed encyclopedia would not have a long single column list. Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do you want the Collections section on the article to be done as (A) prose?

Do you want the Collections section on the article to be done as a (B) list?

Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In favor of (A)

I want the collections section to be in prose per my reasonings above. Zpeopleheart (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In favor of (B)

• Support per my explanation above. Mduvekot (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my explanation above. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Meatsgains (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - List format is better than prose - At the moment it all looks squashed in If that makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a better format than prose. — Music1201 ^talk 18:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support No cohesive argument in favor of prose. List format supports readability and seems appropriate for the content. Factchecker25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Motion to close per WP:SNOW. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tony Scherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526215339/http://www.rca-arc.ca/en/about_members/since1880.asp to http://www.rca-arc.ca/en/about_members/since1880.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919230843/http://www.winstonwachter.com/artist_bio_seattle.php?folder=Scherman_Tony to http://www.winstonwachter.com/artist_bio_seattle.php?folder=Scherman_Tony
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918144122/http://www.winstonwachter.com/artist_page_seattle.php?folder=Scherman_Tony to http://winstonwachter.com/artist_page_seattle.php?folder=Scherman_Tony

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)