User talk:Cannon98
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Cannon98, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a bit nonplussed to see you editwarring about your addition to the lead section of this article.
I explained quite politely but clearly in my edit comment why I removed the addition. However, let me do so again here in the hope that we will not have to move to the article's talk page about it, as I have no doubt at all that the addition is misplaced. Here are the reasons:
- 1. It is not appropriate (ever) to introduce new ideas, claims, and materials into the lead section of an article. The lead's job is to summarize the body (main text) of an article, not to start off on its own tack.
- 2. It is very rarely appropriate to cite materials in a lead section, and if it is needed when something is controversial, the place for the citation is in the article's body (as per #1 above), with the ref repeated in the lead to eliminate doubt. That is not the issue here.
- 3. The material you introduce concerns food supplies in Roman times, NOT "cuisine". Cuisine articles are about the recipes and dishes served, not about whether segments of the population are starving. In my edit comment, I suggested a better target for that kind of discussion.
I would like, therefore, to revert your addition(s). Please do not take this personally: it is simply that they are misplaced - in the wrong part of the wrong article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but why did you delete the other information? Now I'm a bit NONPLUSSED! Chiswick Chap Cannon98 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Cannon98
- It all seemed 'cut from the same cloth', i.e. concerning nutrition and citing refs for such in a social geography sort of way, rather than discussing recipes for elephant snout or whatever, which is the topic of the article. Further, the lead was not the place for any of it. Since there is another article (Food and dining in the Roman Empire, as I have repeatedly mentioned) where such things are relevant, it might be best to try over there, but please not in the lead. In fact that article's talk page might be the best place to make a proposal. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you suggest moving this information to the Food and dining in the Roman Empire article? I'm just confused because both that article and the cuisine article contain similar information. I understand there is a difference between cuisine and food and dining, but these articles do not clearly examine these differences. I feel like the information I posted was valuable, but it seems both articles are disjointed which makes it difficult to say which is better suited for my information. Expunging everything I wrote seems very childish considering the information was not in the "lead" and pertained to preexisting information in the article. Cannon98 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Cannon98
October 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm Rrburke. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ancient Roman cuisine— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)