Talk:Smiley's people (essay)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrevan - I see you updated that this page is in dispute. On what grounds is it being challenged? I hope no one feels that it is biased - I was only trying to report that Neal Stephenson wrote this article, and then later changed his mind. As an author, I don't think I have an opinion on the use of smilies, though I would certainly think twice before using one in a corespondance with Neal Stephenson. Anyway, I believe the article, however brief, to be unbiased, informative, and verifiable. It is informative in that it is an article the author wrote that illustrates a problem he perceives with the internet and illustrates how an author can change his mind as he matures. It is verifiable in that the external links point to NS authored pages that say as much. Thank you for drawing my attention to the dispute. If there is anything missing in the article, please let me know and I will see what I can do to flesh it out. -Armaced

I agree with you, I see no reasons for deleting this article (other than not covering magazine articles in Wikipedia, but this one is quite relevant), and it certainly has a NPOV. Even the usage of the {{inclusion}} template is not recommended in Wikipedia:Inclusion dispute, so I propose removing it, and leaving it just as a stub (althought I'm not sure if it could be expanded much). --xDCDx 15:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, if the article doesn't become any bigger, I really don't understand what the problem would be with simply merging it with Emoticons. It just makes a good deal more sense, in my head at least. -- nothingxs 04:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

This article is clear, consice and answers a specific question. Merging it with Emoticons adds information that would be unneccessary to people looking for specifics.