Talk:Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Trains: Rapid transit Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

call for discussion

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)[reply]

I voiced my concern on the talk page of the individual who performed the informationectomy. They assured me that they were well intentioned, and planned to rewrite the article -- at some point. I urged them to discuss major changes, first, and explained I was going to revert their changes. Geo Swan (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Done Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]