This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
Hello Corker1, I'm just letting you know that I've rolled back your recent edits on Georgetown Car Barn for two reasons. Your copyedits breaking up standard-sized paragraphs into many short ones is unwarranted. While having numerous paragraphs of no more than two sentences is very common in journalism, it is not good practice elsewhere, including on WP. Moreover, several of your edits replaced references with archival WP:BAREURLS. That was not helpful because the existing references were necessary to support the adjacent text. Please feel free to ping me if you would like to discuss this further. Ergo Sum16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC) (copy and pasted from Corker1's talk page).[reply]
@Ergo Sum:WP:BAREBARRELS actually states: "There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia." Further, your edit removed much information that I had added and restored undocumented information that I had deleted.
Additionally, some paragraphs that you restored were so lengthy that few people would choose to read them in their entirety. If you are unable to cite a WP source that recommends a specific number of sentences within paragraphs as being "good practice", please do not revert short paragraphs that other editors have added.
In summary, when you revert other editors's contributions, do not remove documented information that the other editors have added or replace undocumented information that they have removed. Such reversions are unhelpful to readers, even if they are not vandalism. I have therefore restored the edits that you removed. Corker1 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it necessary to point out to you that this is a featured article and has changed very little since being promoted. It has undergone extensive copyediting and source checking. I'm fully confident that everything is cited, mainly because I wrote the article. I say this not to claim any kind of ownership but to let you know that I thoroughly added and checked most everything in the article. If you have a specific example of where there is an unsupported statement, please do point it out.
As far as citations go, my point is why would you remove full citations that support existing content and replace them with barelinks (which are deprecated) that do not?
As far as paragraph length goes, this is a topic that has been discussed at length at FAC and various other forums. If you look at pretty much any other FA, you will find that the length of paragraphs here is very much in line with them. Paragraphs are not supposed to be two sentences long. I am reverting again. If you disagree with me, I am more than happy to involve the opinions of other experienced editors.
As far as added content goes, please feel free to re-add it. Undo/rollback is not a fine-toothed comb but it is useful for reverting a large quantity of edits. Ergo Sum17:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ergo re avoiding bare URLs and one or two sentence paragraphs. Its great to see Corker1 helping and engaging, but it seems that their preferences are not compliant with the inhouse manual of style. Best wishes to all. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Please be more specific. State which "preferences are not compliant with the inhouse manual of style". Provide direct links to each page in the Style Manual that supports your contention. Please also do not remove any text that is not directly relevant to your complaint, as it is extremely burdensome to replace this. Corker1 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corker, I just want to reiterate that because this is an actively disputed matter, we should establish consensus here before implementing any edits related to the dispute. (That includes paragraph splitting). I fear that this will quickly become an edit war if that is not heeded. I realize that having one's edits reverted is unpleasant, especially after one has put a lot of time into a particular set of edits. As you say, it is burdensome to have to deal with that tempo of editing. That's why the talk page is useful to get things sorted out in advance. This is just a helpful tip from someone who loathes edit disputes and has acquired my fair share of tips to avoid them. Ergo Sum21:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
