This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Another contributor removed a most of this article, providing as explanation only the brief edit summary "rm trivial info already covered in other articles". I think such a large excision requires more discussion than a single edit summary.
With regard to covering information in multiple articles. No one wants multiple articles to cover exactly the same information, at the same level of detail. Doing so requires more work keeping the material up to date. The coverage in the multiple articles can grow out of synch, and contradict one another. That would be bad.
So, the main coverage should be at a single article -- with the related articles providing enough coverage to provide some context, and providing a wikilink to the article with the main coverage. The other contributor didn't bother to leave any context, or to leave any links to the related articles where they claim the material they excised belonged.
Okay -- so how are the readers of this article supposed to know there is related information, elsewhere? How are they supposed to know how to get to the articles where they can find that related information?
In addition, the contributor who performed the informationectomy, and referencectomy, didn't explain how they concluded the material they excised was "trivial".
I am not going to simply revert this series of edits. I am going to call on the other contributor to explain their series of edits. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Another contributor removed a most of this article, providing as explanation only the brief edit summary "rm trivial info already covered in other articles". I think such a large excision requires more discussion than a single edit summary.
With regard to covering information in multiple articles. No one wants multiple articles to cover exactly the same information, at the same level of detail. Doing so requires more work keeping the material up to date. The coverage in the multiple articles can grow out of synch, and contradict one another. That would be bad.
So, the main coverage should be at a single article -- with the related articles providing enough coverage to provide some context, and providing a wikilink to the article with the main coverage. The other contributor didn't bother to leave any context, or to leave any links to the related articles where they claim the material they excised belonged.
Okay -- so how are the readers of this article supposed to know there is related information, elsewhere? How are they supposed to know how to get to the articles where they can find that related information?
In addition, the contributor who performed the informationectomy, and referencectomy, didn't explain how they concluded the material they excised was "trivial".
I am not going to simply revert this series of edits. I am going to call on the other contributor to explain their series of edits. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)