Talk:Maximilien Robespierre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deleted video links

I have reverted the videolinks previously reverted by Nikkimaria and restored by Taksen, for three reasons: (1) Not clear if all of those links meet copyright concerns, as set out in WP:VIDEOLINK; (2) Comments about the themes and "balance" of the videolinks, without supporting cites, infringes NPOV and WP:OR; (3) Taksen can't have it both ways, and say that Nikkimaria can't put the TOOLONG template up without doing something, and then revert it right away when Nikkimaria starts cutting the article to comply with the standard page limits. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This section became pretty unbalanced. Charles F. Warwick published his book in 1909. It can't be historically reliable section if it does not show nothing newer. There are many rules which can be used in one's own profit, some rules I don't trust. I know Wikipedia does not like YouTube, me neither, but these documentaries are pretty good. They explain Robespierre pretty well when studying him.

You were also the one who added a lot of hidden text and references recently. Now you deleted this template and want the article to become shorter. How can you change your mind so quickly? It took P. Jordan more than 300 pages. I think this article is confusing when someone is not familiar with all the names but it has only 40 pages, 75 including the many refs.Taksen (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding changes in approach, it's common for contributors to reassess and refine their editing strategies based on various factors, including article length, readability, and relevance of content. The intention might be to ensure clarity for readers who might not be familiar with the names mentioned. Balancing comprehensiveness with readability is often a delicate task in creating accessible yet informative articles.Taksen (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see I used ChatJPG to reply. Finally there is a program that assists with formulating.Taksen (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No size limits

I don't know how to link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_paper

but this is what is written there:Taksen (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits in the Wikipedia universe. It is quite possible, for example, that when you finish typing in everything you want to say about poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Encyclopædia Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics).

and from the same article:

Any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.

The English Wikipedia version of that page is WP:NOTPAPER, which states, "Editors should limit individual articles to a reasonable size to keep Wikipedia accessible (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While some articles may appear lengthy to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter, it's crucial to distinguish personal opinions about their length. Such judgments are more appropriately expressed on the talk page rather than being prominently featured at the top of the article.Taksen (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

December 1793 is a crucial month regarding the reign of terror. I moved some of the details to Le Vieux Cordelier but that article only has about ten/fifteen readers a day. That means that information gets lost. The context - the discussion with Desmoulins, who protected Danton, the suicide of Clavière, and the arrests and executions in December - should not disappear.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While there is room for improvement in the article, the current template is inaccurately applied. It has not undergone discussion, and the presence of numerous sections and subsections contradicts the assertion presented to the reader. A more accurate evaluation should be considered before displaying such information.Taksen (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)