Hi, in this discussion, so as not to create further misunderstandings, is it possible to change the title of the question? (spelled without dash, https://www.parmigianoreggiano.com/it/). JacktheBrown (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be discussed in the thread. There's no need to alter other editors' posts per WP:TPO. The editor who originally posted that may have a pov that it should have a dash and that is their prerogative. DeCausa (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Recent reversions at "Legal System of Saudi Arabia"[edit]
You cite "unfamiliar terms". Are we "dumbing down" for the general population, as have done the newspapers? Why oppose a more accurate term if it is appropriate? Perhaps the average American dummies will refer to the dictionary (or Wiktionary), and be the better for it. Just curious. 144.121.24.154 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Resisting changing from "male Polygamy" to "polygyny" is dumbing down! We have a global audience of one billion views per day. That article could be read by a teenager in Kenya whose 3rd language is English one day and a professor in Massachusetts the next day. If you're not willing to "dumb down" for the "general population" then you need to find a different hobby than Wikipedia. Mind you, I also wouldn't describe pointlessly expanding text without adding meaning (which is how I would describe the verbosity of some of your aditions)) as struggling against "dumbing down". But if you stay you need to follow our policies - that includes not adding text that is unsupported by the existing citation. That's a breach of WP:V as explained in WP:HIJACK. In future, if you have any points to make on edits on anrticle do so on the article talk page please. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still, however, oppose the notion that a writer within any context other than children's literature (I would venture to suggest that Wikipedia is for adult consumption by dint of its inherent nature...perhaps a "Kids Wiki" is called for?) should attempt to tailor his writing to his audience, but rather should hope of improving the minds of his audience by encouraging expansion of syntactic awareness and vocabulary. the reader should raise himself to the level of the literature, rather than the writer lowering himself to the level of a reader which he might imagine. I only contacted you directly, on your own talk page, because I am only interested in your own opinions as they pertain to this specific instance; I have no intent to clutter your personal space. Your complaint about the desirability of a reference is valid. my defense would be that the suggestion is entirely obvious. Thanks for the brief engagement, and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.24.154 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
