Wikipedia talk:Out of scope

Proposal to develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some duplicated sentences in this article
I noticed that some of this article's text is identical with the WP:Scope essay. Should any of the duplicated sentences be merged? Jarble (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This essay is a variation on Scope, so, yes, some of the sentences would be duplicated. That is appropriate. It's like You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and You do need to cite that the sky is blue. The essential difference between WP:Out of scope and WP:Scope is that Scope says that editors can decide the scope of an article (so some editors can agree that swords wielding skeletons are part of the scope of an article on the Peloponnesian War), while Out of scope says that editors should refer to reliable sources to determine if those skeletons are appropriate. It's an alternative view; the views are not compatible, so merging would not be appropriate.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)