Talk:Brighouse, Richmond

Unsourced Statements

@Joeyconnick: Another butchering arising from a typical failure to study all supporting references, a limited grasp of Richmond's current developments/history, and an unfamiliarity with the proper grammatical use of the lowercase, missing words, etc.. Naturally, when current projects are completed, dates and a couple of further references can be added. Substituting pointless verbosity, and eliminating contextual content, which has created an inconsistent muddle, have no place in an encyclopedia. DMBanks1 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: When editing, we can find it helpful to study the supporting references. In many cases, this can be quite simple where the source document has good search functions. If not, it will take longer, but it also provides clarity as to how the Wikipedia contributor reached various conclusions. Moreover, a well written source document likely follows the Chicago Manual of Style, which is largely in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. This can help us avoid grammatical errors and better understand the variants of style. Good copyediting takes time to learn, and we are all far from perfect. When we need to present a lot of details, brevity helps the reader more easily grasp the big picture. Our manual of style explains the acceptability of abbreviations. We are an encyclopedia, and should not be a repository for aspiring prose.

Where a statement actually lacks a credible supporting source, we can use the citation needed tag, or if we are unfamiliar with the subject matter, a comment on the talk page might draw upon the insights of those more knowledgeable. It is contrary to our guidelines to immediately delete/amend content merely because an idea is foreign to us. In extreme cases, where suspect content is predominant, the factual accuracy is disputed tag may be appropriate.

The WP:Easter refers to links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Where an acronym or word is of little significance in its context, or the phrase can be fully understood without opening the link, we do not have this situation. In narrative, paying attention to context is important.

Whether to use Province has always been a point of contention among experienced editors. To most contributors, either option is quite acceptable.

In Wikipedia, we adopt a neutral point of view. Where conclusions differ, we seek to present the various valid opinions, rather than making wholesale deletions/reversals of those contributions that diverge from our own bias. I wish you every success in your future endeavours. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)