Talk:Poetry Project
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unbelievably, there was no entry for the Poetry Project, so I started this minimal one. JimmyTheSaint 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
More information?
editUh...St. Mark's Church...where? There are, i suppose, thousands of them in the world; i'm guessing the vast majority do not sponsor a poetry project. In other words, can there be some more information, maybe showing notability, certainly giving some context? Cheers, LindsayHi 07:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Reverted edits.
editWhy were some of my edits reverted just now? {{Refimprove}} tags go at the top of the page per its doc page and MOS:LEAD. Also the extra spacing is unnecessary and {{Poetry-stub}} tags go at the very bottom of the article below everything else per the template's own doc. I was just fixing the formatting there. -- Shrikesong (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Formatting should fit needs, and not the other way around. WP:MOS is not policy, and does not need to be followed robotically. Since the article is fine as it is, there's no need to make changes simply to follow "the letter of the law", since there is no "law" per se. BMK (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alright. I don't know that I agree since it is perfectly fine to leave it as I put it as well. I didn't really do it robotically, but since I made changes to the category, I went ahead and formatted those templates. More consistent with other articles that actually follow the MOS. Wouldn't have done it by itself if I wasn't making any other changes. Don't think that this is a very special case that needs different formatting. Only thing would be to not like the look of having refimprove at the top. But since that was how it was for a good while, I can accept the status quo on this, I suppose. Just a stub article after all :) Thank you. -- Shrikesong (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)