Content deleted Content added
→Rfc on use of "imposing": more fmt |
→Rfc on use of "imposing": This is literally WP:NOTHERE and is not okay |
||
Line 170:
::::::I never said that. I said that your comment was not relevant to my points on [[WP:PUFFERY]], [[WP:VOICE]] or the current issue of [[WP:OVERCITE]]. I have never been opposed to stating in a latter section that it "Has frequently been described as imposing" (with an adequate number of quality citations). I never even said that any of the sources you mention are bad - rather how irrespective of the sources it is inappropriate to describe '''anything''' with words of such criticism in [[WP:VOICE]] as a prominent part of a lede.
::::::It is unfortunate that intentional failure to consider the subject of the issue, which is adherence to the pillar [[WP:NEUTRAL]], gives the impression of being [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It can only be seen as an opinion to the average reader. There was enough consensus without the need to have an RfC, I thought? [[User:Seasider53|Seasider53]] ([[User talk:Seasider53|talk]]) 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*As repeatedly explained, ''imposing'' is a term of art in architectural criticism. We now have thirteen sources describing it that way (three in the article and ten listed </del>in an earlier thread on this page<del> here):
| |||