Talk:Isaac Falla
I thought editing of others entries was first to be discussed on this discussion page? This was an exact quote from the 1904 tree and is perhaps best left as originally written rather than edited to a 21st C style.
There was never any intention to enter into discussions about administrators' edits for style and format. Jerripedia pages, as is the case with the majority of Wikis, are open to all contributors to edit if they believe that they can be improved. It is only on matters of fact, in family trees, etc, that editors are asked to open a discussion first. It is, of course, open to writers whose work is edited to reverse those edits if they believe the article has not been improved by them.
I have been spending a considerable time revisiting all pages on the site, tidying them up, trying to present them in a common style (there are three different styles for dates in four paragraphs on this page alone). Some feel that consistency of editorial style in matters such as dates, use of full stops, etc is not important, but I believe that a simplicity and consistency of style makes the site look more professional and easier to read. I believe that material which is directly quoted should be as originally written and presented between quotation marks, whereas reported speech should be in a simple, current style.
The last paragraph in this article, for example, is a nonsense presented in the present tense. Perhaps the whole article should be in quotation marks - it is by no means clear if it is entirely original text.
I have no wish to upset any valued Jerripedia contributors so I have reverted the article to the original version. But I have then either removed internal links which, after two years, still go nowhere, or to the wrong pages, or pointed them to the correct pages.
It is up to you if you feel that the article requires further minor editing on the lines suggested above. It will probably be at least two years until I embark on another review of all pages and reach the letter 'i' again!
Mike
