Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 14: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:14, 22 March 2022

Revision as of 15:05, 30 May 2022

Line 454:

Support as proposer [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] ([[User talk:Zppix|talk]]) 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

* '''Tentative''': if I understand correctly that the idea is to create a version of {{T|Uw-editsummary}} that shows where edit summaries go in the Visual Editor interface instead of the standard edit window, presumably to be used when the recipient’s edits are tagged VE, that sounds like a good idea. I don’t use VE myself, but I can imagine someone who does being confused by the illustration of an unfamiliar or irrelevant-seeming form. {{ping|Zppix|p=,}} please expand on the above proposal, providing some rationale, so people don’t have to guess what this is actually about.—[[User:Odysseus1479|Odysseus]][[User talk:Odysseus1479|'''<fontspan colorstyle="color:slateblue;">1</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:darkviolet;">4</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">7</fontspan>''']][[Special:Contributions/Odysseus1479|'''<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">9</fontspan>''']] 04:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

*'''Support''', if I understand the proposal correctly. Sounds like a good idea. The visual editor ''does'' indeed handle adding edit summaries in a different way than the wikitext editor does. [[User:APerson|APerson]]&nbsp;([[User talk:APerson|talk!]]) 05:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

*'''Somewhat support''': If the proposal is indeed what {{u|Odysseus}} is saying, this does seem like a good idea. Might be worth it to add as a parameter to the existing template though. —&nbsp;[[User:Crh23|<span style="font-size: 110%;background-color:#E90800; color:#000005;font-family:Garamond;">&nbsp;'''crh'''&nbsp;<span style="color:White;">₂₃&nbsp;</span></span>]]<small>&thinsp;([[User Talk:Crh23|Talk]])</small> 19:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Line 473:

I suggest tweaking ''"You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary..."'' to ''"You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary..."'' and expanding ''"on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing"'' to ''"on Wikipedia this is known as [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and is usually seen as obstructing"''. Any thoughts? --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

:Good idea, I wholeheartedly agree with the suggested change. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

::I agree; another reason to explain ''edit warring'' as a ‘term of art’ here is that there appears to be a common public misconception that it includes what’s elsewhere called ''[[flaming (Internet)|flaming]]'' or similar hostile talk-page interactions that belong instead under the rubrics of [[WP:NPA]] or [[WP:BATTLE]].—[[User:Odysseus1479|Odysseus]][[User talk:Odysseus1479|'''<fontspan colorstyle="color:slateblue;">1</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:darkviolet;">4</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">7</fontspan>''']][[Special:Contributions/Odysseus1479|'''<fontspan colorstyle="color:maroon;">9</fontspan>''']] 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

:::Hi. "Elsewhere" is little too generic. At least in IMDb, edit warring is defined as any form of tug-of-war reverting, be it hostile or friendly. (In Wikipedia, hostility is needed. Friendly remedial editing is actually encouraged.) I've seen "edit warring" used in Wikia too, but because bullying the newcomer is the norm there, I couldn't work out a definition. (They revert newcomers just because!)