This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
Comments? Maurreen 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We need to respect rules!
Pay attention that it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies (eg WP:BOLD).
Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.
What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. THAT IS VERY RUDE.
Please read this:
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.
I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.
———However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. MJCdetroit 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit). The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
See the following:
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 − 17".
Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code – to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.
However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.
See #Dates of birth and death (another section in the same article) for example.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for details.
Wai Wai, this is progress. Thank you.
But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.
I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? Maurreen 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. — and – are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what — and – do. — ptk✰ fgs 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. Tony 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people have left notes on Wai Wai's talk page about the style guide changes. Wai Wai has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. Maurreen 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thee above are not warnings, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Removing warnings. The responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.
Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings":
Replies to removing warnings
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from
Wikipedia:Removing warnings: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism."
Maurreen 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?
Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists) (which is actually my second update done last week). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.— Wai Wai ( ☎) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Here are some options, in alphabetical order:
Comments? Maurreen 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What are you really saying? Anyway, I have examined the revert policy once again. Unfortunately I'm afirad all people are wrong, at least in reverting. Stephen Turner states he was trying to be bold to revert long hours of contributions. However the "bold" policy clearly states it does not apply in terms of "reverting". Although a few people support him by doing the same, the action is wrong. The majority people are performing the same action does not justify the action itself. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We need to respect rules!
Pay attention that it's NOT my PERSONAL opinion. It is stated in the policies (eg WP:BOLD).
Please read the following rules first about revert. No one seems to care or understand about the "revert policy" - not to revert people's contributions even if it has problems. Revert is not something which should be taken lightly. "Reverting" is harmful, and so on.
What's more, the recent update is not just the same as the old one. It has spent me valuable time to modify the update according to some comments (eg super-section, bullets, and spacing in unit measurement). However people keep reverting THE WHOLE PART OF IT instead of stating the questions. People seem to think it is just the same and revert it without any examination. THAT IS VERY RUDE.
Please read this:
I realise my edits may not be perfect, but that's the process of wikipedia. I post a preliminary edit. People will try to edit and improve it. We don't need to make sure it is 100% acceptable and perfect before it can be put. Consensus will be reached during the edit process.
I am willing to work on the problems or consensus issues. However people keep saying there is no consensus, but they are unwilling to specify where is the no consensus. Please specify the problems and what your doubts are, so I will know which are in higher priority and focus my explanations on them. I will try to explain some of the reasons why I make the changes. Consensus and agreement could be made in this regard. Please give me some time to fix the problems before you make your decision.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have forgotten whether which is copyedit, which is proposal. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Read them once. If you find anything problematic, state it out.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong to state this out to remind editors? When someone which is unsure what unit should be chosen, they are going to read that section. The covering under 'conversions' is not clear, at least to some people.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
——You must have non breaking space between the number and symbol. Here's why: I weigh 180lb and drink a 1l of water a day. Having a space is easier on the eyes and is more consistent with many technical writings.
———However I see the non-spacing version in other formal writing, including the dictionaries. I see it uses 500g, 10km and so on.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
——It's not for understandability, it's the way formal writings are styled. MJCdetroit 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If memory serves, they are (nearly) summarised changes (copyedit). The major change is to move all general style and formatting which can apply to the rest of the page (or date formats) in the front first.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
See the following:
Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "14—17" for the numbers 14 to 17. It is often preferable to write this out (eg "14 through 17" (US and Canada) or "from 14 to 17"). It is to avoid confusion with "14 minus 17", which is expressed with spaces, as "14 − 17".
Traditionally, ranges of numbers and dates are given with an en dash (—). Simply click the "–" button (excluding quotes) below the edit window or insert it with any software supporting this punctuation. Please avoiding typing the code – to insert en dash. It is because new editors may not understand the code. They may delete the code due to misunderstanding. Also the visually form of "—" (excluding quotes) is more visually appealing and readable in the edit screen.
However, nowadays some sources use spaced or unspaced hyphens, at least online, and some Wikipedians believe that these hyphens should not be changed to en dashes.
See #Dates of birth and death (another section in the same article) for example.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for details.
Wai Wai, this is progress. Thank you.
But the above material does not indicate the difference between the established style guide and your desired changes.
I have asked you to address a pragraph at a time. If you won't do that, would you at least narrow it to a section or subsection at a time, whichever is smaller that is applicable? Maurreen 18:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the changes to the dash guidelines highly objectionable. — and – are easy to type, their names quite clearly indicate "this is a dash", and HTML entities are certainly no more confusing than most of the markup used in MediaWiki. I don't see any reason to disallow using the Unicode characters, but "confusing for new editors" describes a whole lot more of what goes on here than these HTML entities. Anyone playing with the sandbox will be able to see what — and – do. — ptk✰ fgs 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's a little sudden. They need copy-editing in a number of places, and while I like a lot of the changes, I don't like all of them. Tony 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people have left notes on Wai Wai's talk page about the style guide changes. Wai Wai has removed them all, including my note intended to discourage such removals. Maurreen 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thee above are not warnings, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Removing warnings. The responses (discussions) are related here. Why don't all of you simply reply here? Forking the discussion is hard to follow, not to say others are not going to read them.
Just like this case, my responses about the removal is completely missing. As a reference, here's the previous discussion about "removing warnings":
Replies to removing warnings
Removing the recent notes here about your changes to the style guide is misleading. Also, from
Wikipedia:Removing warnings: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism."
Maurreen 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Anyway I have received no warning from the admin etc. at all. The 3RR is fake. I don't know if I understand correctly, but it seems to be the reverse. I posted an update. Others reverted all the changes without even trying to improve or examine. After all, I have done 2 reverts. How come I have violated 3RR (and received warning)? Weird?
Anyway I don't care much. Time should be spent on improving articles, not on trivial things.-- Wai Wai ( talk) 18:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to read through your changes in detail at the moment, but here are some general comments:
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding general comments, I have modified my changes based on what you say (eg bulleted lists) (which is actually my second update done last week). Let's see how others respond to the proposed changes then.— Wai Wai ( ☎) 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)