Talk:Eglinton Maintenance and Storage Facility

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)


 * 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)
 * ✅ Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)