Talk:Lixion Avila

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Avila said this[edit]

Hey look! I HEARD THAT BEFORE ABOUT EPSILON...HAVEN'T YOU? Weatherlover819 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

If that section gets any longer, it might be time to consider moving them to Wikiquote... 86.136.250.66 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WikiQuote may not be around much longer, since apparently there's a move to delete the entire project. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual lack of information[edit]

This is one article where notability may not even matter. There's virtually no information. If the project wishes to save this article, expand it significantly, if you can. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this thing be used or is that too close to being a primary source? Juliancolton (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lixion isn't the one publishing it, so it could. However, books and refereed papers are better. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes Revisited[edit]

Why are there quotes in the article when they are not encyclopedic? I have been removing them but I get getting reverted. On WP:QUOTE, it says "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style; see Wikipedia:Writing better articles." As mentioned above, the quotes are better suited for wikiquote. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been reverting them because they aren't unencyclopedic since they are a major personality characteristic of the man. --86.150.169.250 (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it enylopyedic? Seems like a classic example of WP:NOT to me. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better question is: why are they not encyclopedic? Your link to that policy page doesn't even discuss this matter, and you seem to be acting against your own userbox that says you object to making edits that remove information. Removing one of most notable things about Dr. Avila (his quirky forecasting reports) smacks of editing that removes information. However I wouldn't object if perhaps only one or two of the quotes were retained as an illustrative example. --86.150.169.250 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:PLOT "An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article" and "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" and in all, WP is not "a topic of loosely related events". In this case I feel it is best to mention that he is known for funny quotes, and link to one example of a good quote. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with YE. A personality characteristic isn't something that an entire article should be devoted to. Furthermore, it's a bit original research to include them as evidence that he's notable for being quirky. We'd need another source to say "Avila is a famous forecaster who is known for his witty discussions", as we shouldn't use primary sources. It'd be like citing a discussion to say that someone prefers a certain style of grammar. It isn't relevant unless it's important, and we can't say it's important unless someone else does. I'm removing them again. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • So compromise is impossible and anything you disagree with can be condemned with catchphrases. Nice to know! --86.150.1.168 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not saying it is impossible, you would just need to find a source for "Avila is a famous forecaster who is known for his witty discussions". YE Pacific Hurricane 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lixion Avila. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lixion_Avila&oldid=1216797018"