While I rather like this page, isn't it a bit ironic that it's basically stating "pages should be simple" in a convoluted way? :) Radiant_>|< 10:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

No. It's stating that the best explanation of a thing is the thing itself. That may lead to simpler pages, but perhaps not, if demonstration is added to analysis. This merely argues for preference to be given the demonstration. — Xiong熊talk* 16:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Isn't slapping on a link to a non-existent category just a convoluted way of being snippy? — Xiong熊talk* 16:35, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

That old comment needs the edit history: Wikipedia:Grapefruit (edit talk links history),

it was only a missing s in Category:Essays. -- Omniplex 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point of this 'Grapefruit' entry?

I would care for a propper Wikipedia article on this fruit.

See Grapefruit; this is an essay about writing articles. SCHZMO ✍ 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good concept, but it doesn't actually give many guidelines on how to implement it. What, for example, am I meant to put in the article for Pornography? Should I simply offer the reader some? While demonstration is very useful, this article makes it sound like it is the only possibility. Suggest changes, perhaps? Daniel (☎) 20:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography and some other topics like spam are often "defined" by I know it when I see it, but obviously that's not always the best approach for an encyclopedia. WP:HORSE is apparently a counter-example (but I'm not sure). -- Omniplex 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

–If you want to try and talk about pornography try and talk about points of view.

• The best example of the scientific name of the grapefruit is Citrus x paradisi. In other words, many readers will need to know how human history has approached a subject, not just how an example of it can be perceived. —Dystopos 04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]