Content deleted Content added
→Revert: Reply |
→Revert: Reply |
||
Line 10:
::::Joe, I was giving examples from the first sentence as an illustration of how it was unnecessarily wordy. I did not mean those were the only "extra words". You have just put back a version that is substantially longer than the way it was. Please revert yourself. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::My primary intention was to make it ''less'' wordy; the current version is four words shorter than the one you reverted to. Again, can you be more specific about what you're objecting to? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::You added this entire sentence "Drafts, including articles moved to draft, are also deleted if they are not edited for more than six months." There is no need to be explaining details of draft space to this audience. That should be explained to someone when/if there article is moved - it doesn't belong in this summary. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 05:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::I think links are helpful to give context on wiki-insider jargon that new users may not be familiar with, and are widely used across help pages for that reason. However, I can tone it down and we can discuss them on a case-by-case basis.
::For example, I really think it's helpful to link "Wikipedia's core content policies"/"core policies" to something. A long-standing problem with NPP's communication has been the use of phrases like "not ready" or "minimum standard" without actually saying what that standard is. Linking to [[Wikipedia:Core content policies]] right at the start tells users what we actually expect from articles, which may be obvious to reviewers but can be opaque to new users. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
| |||