Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MOSBETTER)

Offensive material hatnote

Re: [1]

I'm reverting this per WP:BRD, a few weeks months after the fact. Not because I'm particularly attached to this hatnote, but because I disagree with Codename Lisa's rationale for removing it. It's a matter of principle, something that affects all hatnotes of this type.

The link provides a convenient pointer to further relevant information and, to my knowledge, this is the only (or best) mechanism we have for doing that. If the wording of parameter 1 can be improved to make it seem less awkward or cumbersome, then by all means improve it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mandruss
I don't really mind, though I think an effort can be made to improve the wording. Sure, it affects all hatnotes; but I myself would mind my own wording.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [2] by CL, thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protect It!

This page is important, so it should be fully protected! Thx! (P.S, The protect request box is at the top.) Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already permanently semi-protected, which is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts

Hello, I'm not a contributor of the MOS, and I'm not really qualified as English isn't my first language, but I went through Nielsen Norman's Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts and I found it highly relevant for Wikipedia contributors :

  • "like general web readers, [experts] want content that is digestible, concise, and scannable" + "substance of the content (topics covered and the level of detail) and the importance of credibility"
  • "Provide Facts, Avoid Interpretation"
  • "Citations and Supporting Evidence Are Critical"
  • "Experts Care About Recency" (stay updated)
  • "[Jargon] Change the Rules for Plain Language" (less so, but as wikilinking demystifies technical terms, useful specialised terms can be used)
  • "Grammar and Spelling Count" (of course, and wiki editing allows immediate correction)
  • "Experts don’t read text linearly or completely" + "Experts don’t like fluffy content" + "Experts aren’t necessarily tech savvy" + "Experts appreciate shortcuts in content"

I contribute mainly to technical articles so I found those spot-on, but they can be applied to scientific articles and even cultural ones. I don't know if it could be used as a reference and where? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) (Note: moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style)[reply]

Contradiction tag

Resolved

Widefox, regarding this and this, it seems that you have an issue with the page's wording. I recommend fixing it instead of adding that tag since this is not a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to reconcile grammatically correct vs best practice. Someone else agrees with it being bad Talk:Flux (disambiguation)#Primary topic definition. I saw the tag wasn't ideal for WP space, but it does mention WP so it seems OK. Widefox; talk 21:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, I'm a bit confused on what you mean. I'm asking if you have an issue with the wording on the page. If so, how should we best word it so that we can remove the tag? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew this minute I'd do it or say. Maybe we can just keep it as is, but explain that we don't use that wording, and link to the correct style at WP:DABINT (WP:MOSDAB) ? I'm working on the link I just gave above next, so I'm not doing this now. Widefox; talk 21:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flyer22 Reborn is the tag not clear what the issue is? It's obviously contradictory advice compared to WP:DABINT / WP:MOSDAB, as linked, so this is incorrect style advice here as it should follow the MOS. The MOS is arguably grammatically incorrect, but as dabs aren't articles, maybe it's offtopic here anyhow. Widefox; talk 09:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just stating that whatever issue caused the tag addition should be remedied. Otherwise, the tag is likely to stay there for years. I have not yet thoroughly looked into what the issue is on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:JUSTFIXIT matter, so I just fixed it. If old essay text here with a disambiguation example no longer matches what the disambiguation guidelines say to do, then obviously change the example to match the guideline. The essay cannot overrule the guidelines on how to do disambiguations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Information style and tone" overhaul

I just did a bit of an overhaul on WP:BETTER#Information style and tone, to:

  • Cover persuasive writing (PR/marketing/debate/activism/propaganda) tone.
  • Identify some additional tone and presentation problems that are common, including an example from a prominent article.
  • Stop the essay from directly contradicting WP:NOT#NEWS policy (fixed by distinguishing news style in general from the inverted pyramid in particular).
  • Make the WP:Brevity shortcut actually have a reason to point to that section, which never mentioned brevity (it still barely does; see below).
  • Explain summary style on its own terms not just as something to compare to the inverted pyramid.
  • Put standard practice before iffy practice.
  • Move all the tone stuff in that section into the Tone subsection.
  • Remove a patently false statement (that WP mimics the style of topical RSes, which would mean that our articles on rock stars would be written like those in Rolling Stone); replaced it with real advice (follow the style of FAs and GAs in the same category).
  • Make it clear that lead sections are used regardless of summary vs. pyramid style.
  • Do general clarification and copyediting.

Some further cleanup to do:

  1. Move more tone material from other sections of the page to Tone. WP:TONE should be a one-stop shop for that issue, but some tone bits are scattered around in other sections.
  2. Retarget the WP:Brevity shortcut to the WP:BETTER#Be concise section, since the "Information style and tone" section really has barely anything on the concept, and only mentions it at all because I just added it. We already have a whole section on it, which points to a whole main page on it.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

STEFFENM82 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Refers to"

The explanation about avoiding the use of "refers to" is non-sensical and completely at odds with customary practice. The following examples from reputable encyclopedias suggest that the phrase "refers to" is widely used.

  • "In a restricted sense, the term [grammar] refers only to the study of sentence and word structure (syntax and morphology), excluding vocabulary and pronunciation." (Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/grammar)
  • "The expression particle density refers to the number of particles per unit volume, not to the density of a single particle, and it is usually expressed as n." (Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/density)
  • "Specifically, symmetry refers to a correspondence of body parts, in size, shape, and relative position, on opposite sides of a dividing line or distributed around a central point or axis." (Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/symmetry-biology)
  • The term "hedonism," from the Greek word ἡδονή (hēdonē) for pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in the way that we do. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism)
  • "The term "community health" refers to the health status of a defined group of people, or community, and the actions and conditions that protect and improve the health of the community." (Encyclopedia.com)
  • "The term biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms in a habitat." (Encyclopedia of Life, http://eol.org/info/464)
  • "The term migrant worker refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in work in a remunerated activity in a state in which he or she is not a national." (Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, p. 1429)
  • "Ideology refers to participation as a search for meaning." (Charles Donald Spielberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology: A-E, Volume 1, p.404)

Just thinking about the previous discussion which suggest that the phrase "Dog is a domesticated canine ..." is somehow an improvement on "A dog refers to a domesticated canine..." I am sorry to say that I cannot agree. The word, dog is no more than three letters D - O - G which we have learned to associate with a specific type of animal. It is easier to write the word than to go and get an actual animal to illustrate our meaning. But the word is NOT the same as the animal. Words are referents - that is to day that they are symbols that refer to something else; they stand in the place of something else. I simply cannot see how it is a problem to remind readers of the fact that words refer to an object or a concept or a process or something else. If we do away with this handy phrase, then we will be creating all manner of problems with grammar, expression and meaning. Why are we trying to problematise something that was never a problem in the first instance? BronHiggs (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the examples above are in the form "the word/term/expression **** refers to...". Our section WP:REFERS doesn't reject using this form when appropriate, it tells us that the form is "sometimes used inappropriately" when the primary topic of an article is being defined in the introduction. Pace the OP, our opening The domestic dog ... is a member of genus Canis... is clearly a better opening than "The term "domestic dog" refers to ...".
Having said which, our article Temperament also opens with In psychology, temperament refers to those aspects of an individual's personality..., where it would not be good to replace "refers to" with "is". The section in question does not command "never use "refers to"", it points out that "refers to" and the like is sometimes used inappropriately in the introduction to an article, suggesting that we think before choosing such a formulation: Noyster (talk), 10:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that the phrase may sometimes be used inappropriately. However, simply based on this article - which is not yet policy- there are well-meaning editors who are searching out every mention of "refers to", regardless of where it appears in the article, and replacing it with "is." In the process, they are introducing all manner of awkward expressions and grammatical problems. If challenged, these editors refer to this article for support, despite the fact that it clearly states that it is not policy in the preamble at the top of the page. I would hope that all editors think carefully about word choices, but at issue, is whether we need a policy statement to achieve that end. There is already too much policy creep on Wikipedia. BronHiggs (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those editors are using this essay (currently supplement) wrongly. It should be clear to them that we mean first sentence instances that define the topic as though the topic is about the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a printed Encyclopedia, the topic is a word! BronHiggs (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked (followup edit here) per above and per discussions like this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn To recap, you have "tweaked" the guideline by replacing the phrase "in the introduction" to read "in the first sentence." In other words, you have simply narrowed the scope for the application of the guideline. I just can't see how this addresses the problems in a nonsensical guideline. I have already provided many examples of how "refers to" is used in other encyclopedias - and for anyone who bothers to follow this up, it soon becomes clear that these passages are often the first sentence. I realise that Wikipedia has some bizarre policies and practices, but this one takes the cake! BronHiggs (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a guideline. It does not have the weight of a guideline or policy, but it is commonly followed. Per my commentary above and the discussion I linked to, the tweak helps stop people from broadly applying this supplement page (former essay). As for "nonsensical," it is not nonsensical to refrain from beginning the lead as though the article is about a word when it's not about a word. And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence also now advises against doing so. And that is a guideline. If you want to challenge Wikipedia advising to refrain from beginning the lead as though the article is about a word when it's not about word, I suggest you take the matter to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Jomontscb (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns of ships and other inanimate objects

Is there any policy guidance on this? Was about to change "her" to "its" on a windmill article until I saw the HTML comment "windmills are always referred to as 'she'", and checking other articles it looks like we do this for ships. Do we do it for windmills, and for anything else where there's a tradition of it? --Gapfall (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can sources be off-topic?

A user at Talk:Shammar#Shammar in Syria (the 2-year-old given citation are exclusively related to al-Sanadid and ISIS, para 5) is arguing that sources being cited are off-topic. Where the main subject of a reliable source does differ from the article where it is being cited, should this policy prevent them from being cited? Batternut (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Header spacing questions

How badly does an article require that its headings be spaced properly? For example, is it appropriate for articles to include the spaces between the equal signs and the heading text...

Like this? This has spaces between the "===" and the "L" and at the end of this.

Or do pages require...

That the equal signs immediately touch the heading words?

And also, is it necessary to hit a return between the heading of question and the body paragraphs above and below? The "Like this?" heading has a return line above and below, yet the "That the equal signs" have no return lines, so each line before and after that heading are left without gaps between them. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have two contrasting facts.

I have 2 different sources that are both from credible organizations that say the exact opposite of each other are true. How should I go about showing both ideas? Freedom4U (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open a discussion on the article's talk page. Others interested in the topic may see a resolution of the apparent paradox that you're not seeing, have insight into source reliability, etc.` EEng 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading level of the audience

Dear Wikipedians,

I seem to recall that once upon a time, we were instructed to write articles at a high-school level. Does anyone know if I can find that guideline (if it still exists), or even if it ever existed at all? Thanks. Red Slash 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence format

The section "First sentence format" ends with "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." This is contradicted by MOS:BOLDAVOID which categorically advises against any linked terms in the bolded part. I think the latter is what's widely followed, so I suggest to rephrase this: "Use as few links as possible before and no links in the bolded title." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit of Tone section

In the last paragraph, the sentence (of the Tone section) is as follows: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important." Which can be edited to: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if it cannot be explained to readers why something is important, then it is not important." This is because "we" is giving rise to a self contradictory paragraph ( the whole paragraph talks about a formal style of writing and advises against using pronouns like we ). 2405:204:33A6:C902:7428:F697:34FE:454E

 Not done: This is a project page, not an article. It's appropriate to use "we" here to refer to Wikipedia editors. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:WBA in edit summaries

We really need to discourage the use of this shortcut as an "explainer" in edit summaries. Writing only "per WP:XYZ" in an edit summary is fine when that shortcut leads to an immediately understandable "do" or "do not".

But using WP:WBA in this manner amounts to "the article was bad and is now better", since this article discusses so very many different things. Which makes it not useful as an edit summary. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tone sections

Missing context: SUM1 re-did the Tone section sub-sectionally and with new shortcuts; Flyer22 objected with an edit summary that said (in part): "did we really need all these new subsection headings? Simply pointing readers to WP:Tone was fine."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Frozen: Yes, we did. The previous version was a wall of text. No, it wasn't fine. I would get lost looking for the pronouns section from the rhetorical questions section from the colloquial language section. Nothing like it on the rest of the page. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't get that big until SMcCandlish's edits of September 2017, which I appreciate. They helped out a lot. But an organisation was warranted. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the section before your edits. I do prefer that -- pointing people to one section that covers it all instead of having several new sections/Wikipedia terms to point them to. I'm going to stick to using the "WP:TONE" terminology. I didn't see the section as a wall of text. But then again, I'm often not one for "too long; didn't read." My attention span is great. Not implying that yours isn't. I just mean that I can tolerate such material without needing a breather or the content being split. If I viewed the section as overly long, I would agree with you.
No need to ping me to this talk page, by the way, since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about attention spans, rather it's about being able to point people to the right content in the right amount of time. Also, if it were about attention spans, my version would be seen as better, because you'd want to accommodate it to as many reasonable attention spans as possible. I wouldn't have had an issue if that block of text all revolved around one main theme understandable to the regular reader as 'tone', but it didn't; it referenced disparate issues left, right and centre that could've really done with a designated area to be linked to. Like I said, there was nothing else like it on the page. I was bringing it in line with that. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was unnecessary. And still is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to organizing it better, in principle. I'm not sure the exact revision is "better" in every way; in particular I don't think the tone section needs multiple shortcuts on a sub-sectional basis. Please keep in mind that this is a very, very general and prosy overview; it is not a replacement for the Manual of Style, so we need not drill down in detail into every tone matter. Just summarize it with liked cross-references to the actual guideline sections that apply. There's probably a balance somewhere between having a text wall, and a too-subdivided section that ends up looking like a list or an attempt to WP:POLICYFORK into an alternative MoS or something. Using boldface pseudo-headings might help impose some "anti-textwall" structure, without clogging up the ToC. Anyway, what I'm seeing is a) Version A, before SUM1's edits; b) Version B, SUM1's overhaul, and c) Version C, a bit of a compromise between SUM1 and Flyer22, but mostly the same as B. I think both B and C are excessive in sub-sectionalizing and especially in shortcutting. I could see maybe one new "advertised" shortcut per segment, but 17 new ones is excessive.

I would suggest re-jiggering this further. Compress the material to restate less of what MoS does; this isn't a place to list out rules, but to summarize a very general gist of tone issues. Throw out most of the new shortcuts, and have fewer subsections (if any remain actually coded as subsections).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I would point out that 7 of the shortcuts already existed, 3 of which were not featured on the page. It was *13 new ones. I did not change the content whatsoever, merely add subheadings, so you can 're-jigger' as much of the content as you want. No one was trying to policy fork. Delete the shortcuts if you so wish, but I had no idea shortcuts were a concept restricted to policy pages. Thought they were merely aids in navigation. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. There are various WP:P&G pages that have something like 50 "unadversised" shortcuts. I know WP:NOT has way more than that. If there's not a dire need to link directly to a specific line, we don't need to put a distracting shortcut box in the page. If someone cannot handle reading a couple of paragraphs of text without being led to a specific clause by the nose, they are at the wrong site. Shortcuts are not restricted to policy pages, we just don't want a forest of them, anywhere. (The worst page in this regard is actually WP:NOT; the mess gets pruned back every few years, then starts growing again.) WP:MOS is probably a better example. It's not divided into tiny "micro-sections" and where we have a shortcut to something that isn't a proper stand-alone section, it's because editors very frequently need to refer to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: I agree with you. I made a mistake when I added all those shortcuts. It was the first time I'd done such an edit to a guideline page. If I were to begin suggesting the deletion of some of the unused or unlikely-to-ever-be-used ones, may I start with your WP:MOSTONE (unused) at the top? Because it seems to be redundant to WP:TONE and MOS:TONE. I'll go through the rest afterwards. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my shortcuts were added under the assumption/observation that editors did need to frequently reference those sections. I hadn't checked as I should've, but it turns out that for example WP:PRONOUN was invalidly used a few times. I know pronouns is something a lot of editors would need to refer to. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already removed WP:MOSTONE, and fixed all the {{Anchor}} tags in the headings (using templates inside headings messes them up in the edit summary window; moved to them to under the headings). A few shortcuts might be useful. Unless this is a "one-stop shop" for everything to do with pronouns on Wikipedia, a shortcut like WP:PRONOUN is probably not a good idea. That might be better as a disambiguation page, like WP:CONSISTENCY. I can think of at least two MOS places alone where pronouns are a big deal, MOS:PERSON and MOS:IDENTITY, but since it's a "WP:" shortcut not a "MOS:" one, WP:NOT#HOWTO may also be relevant along with WP:SELFREF (which also involve not writing at the user in "you" and "we" style – they're basically the broader principles behind MOS:PERSON), and see also Help:Magic words#Gender and Template:Pronoun, which address pronouns in an internal-to-the-community sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Before I go further, I will move the anchors back into the headings but substitute them, as per MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS and WP:TARGET, so they're kept in the browser window but don't disrupt the edit summary. (I moved them there before realising I could avoid that by substituting.)
About the pronouns, you're probably right that WP:PRONOUN(S) could do with disambiguating between the various places. However, on another note, the pronouns section of the MOS is awkwardly forcibly divided between first-person and second-person. I believe this could be less intuitive that simply having a "Pronouns" heading and then having subheadings for first and second person. This wouldn't change any content or existing sections but would lead to much more intuitive linking of the section and would make MOS:PERSON accurate.
If this is done, WP:PRONOUN(S) (and possibly MOS:PRONOUN(S), which currently doesn't exist) could disambiguate between the now-single section of the MOS, the section on this page and MOS:IDENTITY. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUM1, keep in mind that this a supplement page, not a guideline page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Y !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 2409:4072:10F:E572:9DE3:5516:B029:3CBC (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 08:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" question

Macrakis, and anyone else, I am confused by the recommendation to use {{CURRENTYEAR}}. If it is ongoing at the time, but nobody edits the article for another year or two, and in the meantime, the statement is no longer current, doesn't this make it incorrect? I usually use {{as of|ddmmyyyy}} (using just year or month if more suitable), so that it is clear when reading the article, if not updated 5 years later, that the info could be incorrect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but the "currentyear" language was there before my edit. I just rephrased some of the language before that. --Macrakis (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:FICTENSE

Just for clarification, should a fictional character's biography be entirely in the narrative present? Some material describes their history before their first appearance in the medium, and to me talking about that in past tense is fine. Would it be appropriate to mention everything from their first appearance onwards in the narrative present, and leave more leeway to narrative present or past tense for everything before that? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Muthvannakzin (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

Josephzaumoon (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

K- Series Marathi (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pablic K- Series Marathi (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CptViraj (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

Manzihe (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

add https://grammarchecker.net Remove http://www.spellonline.com/ it is no longer available for use.

 Not done: Spellonline is not in the page right now? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Mama1Gal (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I have some help about my article in Sandbox and any additional advice about editing. Because I was sent articles to edit, I thought this was ok. My sincerest apologies. Please give me time to get to grips with this.

 Not done: This is not an edit request. @Mama1Gal: If you need help please add a section to WP:Tea house and users can help you. Terasail[✉️] 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton example is confusing

The Paris Hilton example in the principle of least astonishment section about the use of hatnotes is confusing - it gives the history of the use of hatnotes in the article about Paris Hilton but it is extremely unclear to me what conclusion I am intended to draw from it about how hatnotes are best used. Breatheforpeace (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why semi-protected?

Is there a reason for this talk page to be semi-protected?  --Lambiam 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove “faults”?

I wonder if anyone else agrees that it would be a good idea to remove the slightly derogatory / superior tone of this section: “Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, persuasive writing, which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of appeals to emotion and related fallacies.” Satchel Kay (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:PCR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:PCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Wikipedia:PCR until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Surprising" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Surprising has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § Wikipedia:Surprising until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PCR

FYI, in the section Provide context for the reader, "WP:PCR" no longer redirects there. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_16#Wikipedia:PCR. Fine with me if you can change it back or make appropriate modifications here. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, User:TechnoSquirrel69, On second thought, I used the "what links here" tool on the redirect page to find the pages where the shortcut is used. There are a considerable number of pages that use the shortcut to refer to the section of this page. See for example [3]. You can find how the shortcut is used on one of those pages by doing an edit-find for PCR. You might consider changing the redirect back to what it was. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bob K31416, I still stand by the sentiment of my nomination statement at RfD that I see the initialism used far more often to refer to the user right than this page. We could add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes to alleviate potential confusion caused by the change. It would be out of process at this point to revert to the old target, but you could renominate it at RfD of you disagree with the outcome of the discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I go wrong? From the "what links here" page it looked to me that the shortcut was used much, much, much more for this context section. ??? As it stands now, all those links indicated by "what links here" are now broken. Well, it looks like another active Wikipedia discussion would be involved in something I'm not that familiar with if I renominated and that's not for me. From what I've heard so far I have no idea what's going on, with regard to a good reason for breaking all those links. If you can clarify the situation, I would appreciate it. In any case, thanks for trying to help and that about does it for me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:PCR redirect has pointed to this page since 2008, so I'm not surprised the what links here list is more full of uses referring to this page — the correct target until recently — than anything else. I don't have any data to support my anecdotal experience about the usage of the initialism in editing circles. Out of an abundance of caution, I've added the hatnote, which should help anyone following those links in the older pages. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate that. I started a talk section What links here that you may be interested in. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Writing_better_articles&oldid=1264629589"