Talk:Anova Culinary - Revision history

Beanie Bo: /* Note */ Reply

2025-10-21T20:46:55Z

Note: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 21 October 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:Ah okay, I’ll break out of that habit. I definitely agree with quantity over quality for now, but I was worried about scope for one specific part which was the only part with more than 1 ref. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 20:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)		:Ah okay, I’ll break out of that habit. I definitely agree with quantity over quality for now, but I was worried about scope for one specific part which was the only part with more than 1 ref. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 20:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
			::Yeah, I caught that. Maybe for incident article, that could be the case, but since it's a company, there's usually decent room for improvement.
			::And no worries. It took me a minute to get used to it too! [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 20:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: /* Note */ Reply

2025-10-21T20:23:04Z

Note: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 21 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Note ==		==Note==

	@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] As a heads up, moderators should use discussion tab to discuss relevance or scope. Relevance notice may be added when it's being questioned, but deletion notices should be rare and for obvious cases (e.g. link dumps with no content).		@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] As a heads up, moderators should use discussion tab to discuss relevance or scope. Relevance notice may be added when it's being questioned, but deletion notices should be rare and for obvious cases (e.g. link dumps with no content).

	For company pages such as this, admin prefers to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting, since there's always room to grow the article. CRW is somewhat focusing on quantity and breadth at this stage, then later as it grows, quality of articles may be further scrutinized. Hope that makes sense [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 20:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)		For company pages such as this, admin prefers to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting, since there's always room to grow the article. CRW is somewhat focusing on quantity and breadth at this stage, then later as it grows, quality of articles may be further scrutinized. Hope that makes sense [[User:Beanie Bo\|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo\|talk]]) 20:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

			:Ah okay, I’ll break out of that habit. I definitely agree with quantity over quality for now, but I was worried about scope for one specific part which was the only part with more than 1 ref. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|<i><b>AnotherConsumerRightsPerson</b></i>]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson\|talk]]) 20:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Beanie Bo: /* Note */ new section

2025-10-21T20:13:55Z

Note: new section

New page

== Note ==

@[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] As a heads up, moderators should use discussion tab to discuss relevance or scope. Relevance notice may be added when it's being questioned, but deletion notices should be rare and for obvious cases (e.g. link dumps with no content).

For company pages such as this, admin prefers to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting, since there's always room to grow the article. CRW is somewhat focusing on quantity and breadth at this stage, then later as it grows, quality of articles may be further scrutinized. Hope that makes sense [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 20:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)