 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I've reverted a set of edits that removed a large chunk of material from the article Sand Hills (Nebraska), that added a main-article link leading to this page, and that created a new article here. As a result of my reversion, all of the excised material has been restored to the original article, and this is once again a redirect thereto.
I see no good reason for the edits I've reverted; and their end result strikes me as inconvenient for readers who come to the original Sandhills article seeking information about the ecology of the area, which includes most readers who seek out the article in connection with the Keystone pipeline controversy. Excising material from the original article weakens it by removing or seriously diminishing coverage of one of the most salient aspects of the region; forcing readers who're interested in the ecology of the area to follow the main-article link rather than reading it in the original article seems like a nuisance rather than a service to them.
I can't imagine any information's being included in this article that wouldn't be more appropriately placed in the original Sandhills article's "Ecology" section. Let's leave that article as a single coherent piece rather than turning it into a collection of Wikilinks weakly stiched together with a little prose. Ammodramus ( talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I've reverted a set of edits that removed a large chunk of material from the article Sand Hills (Nebraska), that added a main-article link leading to this page, and that created a new article here. As a result of my reversion, all of the excised material has been restored to the original article, and this is once again a redirect thereto.
I see no good reason for the edits I've reverted; and their end result strikes me as inconvenient for readers who come to the original Sandhills article seeking information about the ecology of the area, which includes most readers who seek out the article in connection with the Keystone pipeline controversy. Excising material from the original article weakens it by removing or seriously diminishing coverage of one of the most salient aspects of the region; forcing readers who're interested in the ecology of the area to follow the main-article link rather than reading it in the original article seems like a nuisance rather than a service to them.
I can't imagine any information's being included in this article that wouldn't be more appropriately placed in the original Sandhills article's "Ecology" section. Let's leave that article as a single coherent piece rather than turning it into a collection of Wikilinks weakly stiched together with a little prose. Ammodramus ( talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)