Talk:History of Cleveland Clinic
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Bluerasberry in topic Odd style
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests was copied or moved into History of Cleveland Clinic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Strange opposition
editSeveral experienced Wikipedia users were insistent that this article not be in Wikipedia. I think this is because the text is provided by someone with an affiliation to the organization. I was unable to get any explanation from any of them. More information is at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#History_of_Cleveland_Clinic. Sorry for the delay in posting this - Wikipedia can be a bureaucracy. This text has been pending since mid 2015. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Odd style
editIs there some reason for the unusual section headings and citation style? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kendall-K1 This is text from a new user. They did not know Wikipedia's house style. Anyone can change it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- We don't normally change citation styles without consensus. If no one objects I might try to get rid of all those urls, which I think make the ref section less readable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kendall-K1 This text is 12+ months old. There is no reason to anticipate that anyone feels strongly about the citation style. Change it as you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- We don't normally change citation styles without consensus. If no one objects I might try to get rid of all those urls, which I think make the ref section less readable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)