Talk:Geji

Proposal

This discussion has become a train wreck. No editor coming to this talk page stands a chance of comprehending the rambling, disjointed meanderings.

The article is also a mess and hasn't been improved by recent changes. Much of the content is either unreferenced, poorly referenced, fails verification or referenced to obscure offline sources that cannot be verified. There is also a question of WP:POV and WP:OR.

I think WP:ATD-E is appropriate here, that is reducing the article to a stub, the remaining content being fully verified by reliable sources. John B123 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that WP:ATD-E is probably a good course of action. The size of the article and the scope of the errors makes it incredibly tedious to try and fix at this stage. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support:

At this point, the talk page discussion isn’t going anywhere. Correcting the text would be far more complicated than simply reducing the article to a stub. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Judging from the extensive discussions above, if some future editor decides the article needs expansion, I think a stub as John B123 proposes would be a far more useful starting point. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geji&oldid=1247758929

Hello, I am the new editor. I have tried my best to fix this article. Please you review and supervise the changes. I hope the version will not be deleted because the readability is better than before. 103.170.73.25 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geji&oldid=1247819797 103.170.73.25 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but the underlying problems with the article still remain, and it has increased in size with your edits. --John B123 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Judging from this discussion, it appears that we have consensus for the stub change correct? Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think so! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As the only oppositon has been indeffed for abusing multiple accounts, I think it's clear to go forward, yeah. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. John B123 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have reduced it to a stub. I am not sure if I did it right, however. I've tried to keep the contents brief but well sourced. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done, that looks good to me. I've made a couple of layout changes to try and stop the image/infobox hanging so far below the bottom of the text. --John B123 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea how to fix that myself, unfortunately. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)