Wikipedia talk:Run-of-the-mill

changing essay without discussion first

To editor Sirlanz: I would prefer that you gain consensus before editing this essay. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor Sirlanz: I warn you against edit warring; I can see this has been an issue for you in the past. The prior version is comprehensible to me and I don't think you have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is relevant to content, not to grammar and expression. If you think it makes sense, kindly explain it so that it can be improved by someone as you have declined to do so. sirlanz 03:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sirlanz: It's not broken so it doesn't need fixing. "For such a commonplace item to be worthy for inclusion in an article, there must be sources provided other than those that would source so many others just like it." The point is that if we're talking about parks, for example, we have to have sourcing beyond the routine gazeteers and write-ups that exist for other parks. Tourism-related information isn't unusual for a park. The sentence means that "For such a commonplace item" like a park "to be worthy for inclusion in an article" we need citations outside of "those that would source" (travel guides, gazeteers) "so many others just like it" because there are lots of other parks out there. There are lots of artists like Marina Amaral but we have to show (unless an SNG like WP:NARTIST is involved) sourcing beyond the museum exhibit announcements and articles in Artnet because those exist for almost every artist. Citations in both English and Portuguese from both newspapers and other websites make her different. I understand English might not be your first language, which is why I'm explaining it. You can revert yourself if my words make sense now. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your lengthy explanation demonstrates the relative inscrutability of the sentence construction. That was my simpler reason for deletion. My more fundamental one is that it is a complete outlier. Everything about the essay is directed at sourcing of substance as article justification. This sentence, on the other hand, suddenly pops up talking about justifying content. If the essay wishes to stray into that area, it needs a section to itself and a whole exposition of its own. In my view, it's a digression and does not belong here. If you disagree, you'll need to build a good deal of material around it to introduce it into this space. And before I sign off, I note your version here removes the ridiculous inverted commas around "other than" which appeared in the article, which contributed to its incomprehensibility. sirlanz 19:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"My more fundamental one is that..." So you admit this is a content issue? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion seems to expose the pointlessness of hosting such essays in Wikipedia space. This is clearly an opinion piece rather than anything to be agreed by consensus - otherwise it would be a guideline - so there's no point in trying to come to any consensus here. Things like this should be in user space where (however the accepted fiction might have it) somebody owns the content. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Then nominate it for deletion. I can tell you now that you don't have consensus to move it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no wish to get involved with such a colossal waste of time. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence now fixed. Editors interested in engaging in discussion about whether this sudden emergence of an entirely new frontier needs expansion/explanation can not tangle with it. I agree with the sentiment expressed by Phil Bridger. sirlanz 16:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)