Talk:Common Sense

message: This really doesn't look like a start class article to me, I think the article's rating in the US project's quality scale should be updated.161.77.38.138 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to C-class. Any article assessment change up to B-class can be performed by a single editor at their discretion. Loafiewa (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still start class? 

message: This article should begin... Common Sense was a 47-page pamphlet. (Note: Its back page was blank.) 73.85.206.245 (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the number of pages is given as 48 in the infobox, although this does seem be unsourced. Do you have a source? Do you have a source for the back page being blank? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT REQUEST - Common Sense was a 47-page pamphlet 

message: This sentence makes no sense: "Common Sense sold almost 100,000 copies in 1776,[12] and according to Paine, 120,000 copies were sold in the first three months." O0drogue0o (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I suspect that the second figure should be 20,000. But as it has no source for Paine's own claim, perhaps it should simply be removed for now? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: Richard Gimbel refers to "today" without any mention being made of when "today" is.  He wrote in 1956, more than half a century ago, and the population of the United States has grown significantly since then.  Therefore, after his phrase "equivalent sale today" please add the date in brackets, i.e. "today [1956], based" 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked further, to put into past tense and retain the verbatim quote. I hope this looks ok, but if not, please revert. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the comma. Also agree, in principle, to trying an unprotect. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you ask the protecting admin, Martinevans123?  Maybe he or she would listen more to someone with an account than to someone with an IP.  208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. I'll try later. But it would obviously help if you created an account? :-) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017 

message: I hope I am not missing anything. If so my apologies, but it seems to me there is a clear error in the way the dab redirects have been set-up. I have nothing against this article but it clearly isn't the main meaning of the term Common Sense. I will adapt on the assumption this is a clear case. I'm sure I'll hear more if I'm wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noted the archived discussion above, but it also seems to show a clear majority seeing it the same way I do, which indeed seems to be "common sense".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually is the main meaning of Common Sense, especially when capitalized. The pamphlet's article actually gets even more views than common sense, and anyone typing Common Sense with a capital S very likely wants this article. The other things on the dab page don't come close. There are also many incoming wikilinks to Common Sense that intend the pamphlet. I just fixed the three I found that intended something else: one for the concept, one for the band, one unclear. Station1 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as I said I have nothing about this pamphlet, but I have to respectfully disagree, and I see that most people do and have done so here on this talk page in previous discussions. Common Sense however it is capitalized is an everyday word whereas approximately 99.99% of people have never heard of the pamphlet. (Funnily enough I have. But honestly I know if I start talking about it no one will know what I am talking about.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective facts are that more people read this article than read the common sense article, and that numerous wikilinks to Common Sense, which were not fixed prior to your change, intend this article. (I just fixed one more, which intended the rapper Common, not common sense.) In the 9-year-old discussion, several people did agree with your point of view, but the closer did not change the redirect at the time, and it has been mostly stable since then. Common Sense is not an "everyday word" like "common sense" and I have no idea why you think no one except you has ever heard of something that is covered in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written. Let's see if others agree or disagree, but in any case, if consensus to redirect develops, please fix the wikilinks before you change it again. You might want to try WP:RFD if no one responds here. Station1 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you would need to show that more editors agree with you. The discussions so far show a clear majority. I think your preference is based mainly on attaching a big importance to capital letters, but in fact common sense (the very common everyday term) is written in many ways in practice. I am happy to hear that lots of people read this article, but of course one possible reason is that people come to it by accident. It can't be our aim to be setting up redirects to get articles read more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree that the aim of redirects should not be to get articles read more. It should be to get readers to the article they want when they type certain words or click on a link. Capital letters are important, both in English generally and in WP titles (see WP:DIFFCAPS). I see no evidence that "common sense" is normally written with capitals or that people come to "Common Sense" in error. In fact, it's more likely that someone would not bother with the shift key when searching for the book than it is that someone looking for the term would capitalize the S; if anything, it's likely more people land on common sense by accident than here, maybe giving that article a small boost. It's not a major issue, except that someone clicking on a Common Sense wikilink should not be sent to the common sense article. Station1 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which happened to me, and must happen a lot, according to common sense ... so to speak. There is a reasonably strong consensus already recorded.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main meaning of common sense? 

message: I added "47-page" pamphlet. Many websites support this. 2601:589:4800:9090:45E1:5CC8:8A27:F2F (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Sense a 47-Page Pamphlet 

message: — Assignment last updated by HughCQuinlan (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History

message: Under the title "III. Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs" there is a diagram that purportedly describes the US Constitution according to Thomas Paine. 
However, it seems more a diagram for the election of the president than the whole of the Constitution.
I don't know if I'm right, though.
  PaulStSmith (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of the "Constitution"