User talk:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7

Great essay
This is lovely, informative, succinct, and a fun read. I love the section about the options.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a hidden option - ask if he wants to make a DYK out of it. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  22:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I like the bit about the subjectivity of "significance." That's a source of a lot of the disagreement about A7. But the word also contains a considerable amount of objective amgibuity; significance is all about context. What's a big deal in my village is peanuts on the national scale; a significant debate in 17th-century German literature (sorry, been reading John le Carre recently) is totally insignificant to the lives of most people. The word is almost meaningless without context. Would it be worth mentioning the subjectivity of "credible" too? What a user finds credible is down to their own credulity, which will vary from person to person and culture to culture. The more I think about this, the more I think the "credible claim of significance" language needs to go. How about this for a back-of-a-fag-packet rewrite:


 * This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event, with the exception of educational institutions, that contains no information about the subject that, if true, could plausibly be suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, or where all such information present in the article is obviously false. The information need only be plausibly suitable for inclusion in any article, not necessarily one about the subject.

GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Or is that lowering the bar rather too far? GoldenRing (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)