Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"If another editor objects..."

I have a question about the relation between

"Loosely, the following types of refactoring are legitimate, with the listed caveats:
Non-contentious cleanup – anything where you are sure that the other editor will thank you for the effort, rather than get mad at you.
Adding missing topic headings and attribution
Correcting indentation levels
Fixing technical matters of wikitext formatting, tables, templates, and the like
Other minor fixes (correcting other user's spelling or grammar is discouraged, but fixing obvious typos is generally acceptable)
Reattaching signatures that have been split from the text, or attaching missing signature templates such as where users have forgotten to sign"

...and ...

"Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

In a recent WQA discussion an editor who did not understand policy complained about my repairing some incorrect indentation, claiming that some unnamed policy forbids all non-contentious cleanup as described above. The WQA was closed with the conclusion that I was within policy - WP:TPO allows it. Even though I "won" (Wikipedia is not about winning) the above seems to say that I was in the wrong.

As an extreme example, if I take "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." literally, someone could object to refactoring on hundreds of talk pages where he has not participated, essentially giving any one editor with enough spare time veto power over all refactoring anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't think that the intent was to give anyone with an "I don't like it" attitude the ability to block non-contentious cleanup of other editor's comments when they have no complaints about it.

To clarify this, I would like to propose adding three words to this page, from ...

"Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

...to...

"Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. In such cases, if another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

-->Interjection the change is to add "In such cases," -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to relect the original intent of PBS, who wrote that paragraph in 2007. He said:

"I have added a paragraph on "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. ..." I think this is necessary because on heated discussions any attempt at refactoring is likely to be seen as non NPOV editing even if the editor doing the editing is really trying hard to do a fair summary of the issues. In cases like this heated arguments and edit wars about the content of the article page do not need to be replicate on the talk page! So another editor object to refactoring of the talk page then the editor performing the refactoring should abort the process."

Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Material pasted below is very perceptive:

After doing a great deal of editing on the Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages article, trying to explain how refactoring is not equivalent to editing, I've come to the opinion that such an assertion is untrue and may be a harmful implication to talk page editors. ("Refactoring" is the process of editing text presentation while preserving the authors' intentions and meaning.)

However, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that refactoring can be accomplished. Unlike computer programming (where the term comes from), text presentation/context is inextricably linked to its perceived meaning. I think we should call this process editing, or copy editing, instead of refactoring.

This is a significant change because it encourages beneficial behavior. The term refactoring is misleading. Even the smallest edits: moving text, indentation fixes, creating summaries - will affect perceived meaning, I believe that is unavoidable. Calling the process refactoring masks that truth.

(I don't yet know enough about Wikipedia to file this proposal properly. I think that a few things should happen if it has consensus: all mentions of refactoring talk pages should be replaced with editing (or copy editing) and this article should be moved. Please help me figure this part out.)

-DanDanRevolution 04:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another interesting quote, from my talk page:

About talk page refactoring, overall, it says, right at the top of the page,

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

That last sentence is the crux, as I learned when I went to AN/I after someone objected to my sorting out a huge mess on a talk page that took me almost an hour to put into good order. Some ... um, person, let's say, who just wanted to annoy me jumped in at the last minute and reverted all the work, back to the very difficult-to-read mess it had been before, just because he could. I got mad, took it to AN/I, and then retracted the complaint after I saw, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."

There's a good side to that, too, though. If someone, for example, "hats" or "closes" a discussion that you want to keep open, at AN/I or WQA or on any talk page, you can just revert the closure; no consensus needed, since "hatting" or "collapsing" or whatever is a form of talk page refactoring.

– OhioStandard

Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I object to the proposal. It's a solution in search of a problem. And as the unnamed other editor in GuyMacon's statement, "In a recent WQA discussion an editor who did not understand policy complained about my repairing some incorrect indentation, claiming that some unnamed policy forbids all non-contentious cleanup as described above.", I object to this as an unfair characterization.

I think I understood the guidelines just fine, including my right to object to the changes GuyMacon was making, which is what I did. I did not make any claim that policy forbid his changes. The text I used in my objection, "Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments as you did here is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.", is lifted directly from {{Template:Uw-tpv1}} (but surprisingly, GuyMacon later objected that I should used an actual template because they're so much better written.) This was GyMacon's response; 3 minutes later, he reverted my undo. This led to my Wikiquette complaint.

I propose we drop the stick and back away from the horse. Just my opinion. Msnicki (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rehashing a WQA after it has been closed is indeed beating a dead horse, and I have no intention of doing that. If I did wish to rehash it I would do so on a user talk page where it belongs, not here. This page is discussions related to improving the Refactoring talk pages page.

Seeking clarification of Wikipedia howtos, guidelines and policies after another editor brought it up is a worthwhile pursuit, and I intend to do so until I am assured that I fully understand Wikipedia policy in this area. Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the sneeky use of template {{od}} to give my comments an eye chatching place in the conversation --perhaps some one should refactor it. ;-)

Some comments on what has been said. This is a howto not a policy, or even a guideline although the comment about reversing is widely followed for talk pages. I drew it up for the same reasons we have Wikipedia:Wheel warring (another computer term), it is simple and does not get into the rights and wrongs of the argument.

We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and arguments about content can be seen to be constructive in the long term, even if they are time consuming for those involved in the short term. Arguments about restructuring the content of talk pages is not constructive, and if it pulls in lots of other editors at an ANI or whatever is detrimental to the project as it removes focus from the raison d'état of this project.

A comment on "If someone, for example, "hats" or "closes" a discussion that you want to keep open, at AN/I or WQA or on any talk page," This is talking about "Refactoring talk pages" it is not a howto for anything else.

With regards for "hats" or "closes" after some examples of hats be used to stifle debates with a "parting shot" eg

closed because user:XYZ WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See template talk:hat -- we made two changes, the wording was changed from "archive" to "close" (because it was not archiving as we use the term on Wikipedia) and we added to documents of {{hat}} and {{collapse}} wording about not doing it unless there is consensus for their use.

Guy MaconOhioStandard you wrote "That last sentence is the crux, as I learned when I went to AN/I after someone objected to my sorting out a huge mess on a talk page that took me almost an hour to put into good order." See my comment above. If you spend an hour editing a talk page without first asking on the talk page if anyone would object to significance "improvements" ... , and taking it to an ANI is precisely why I introduced the wording in the first place (see my comment above).

You of course consider your edits to be constructive, clearly another considered them to be destructive, you have to assume good faith so is it worth continuing and involving others in the debate? "someone could object to refactoring on hundreds of talk pages where he has not participated," Well yes (s)he could and does it matter? Are there hundreds of talk pages that need refactoring that this hypothetical person is going to be monitoring? If they are see as disruptive, then quoting this help page is not going to shield them from administrative sanctions if they persist and do not have valid reasons for their objections.

I am against the change you (Guy Macon) suggest, because the current wording is simple to follow. Your change begs the question "when is the threshold crossed?" and it will lead to debates on that subject, on the talk page probably spilling over into an ANI. It just is not worth it as this is a simple rule that helps editors keep focused on what we should be concerned with -- building a better encyclopaedia.

And in practice, I have found that people rarely object to the changes I make to talk pages. Most often these changes are to add headers to un-sectioned comments sections that are years old, and to move more recent conversations into chronological order (often from the top to the bottom of talk pages -- because new editors are used to email and not Usenet style editing). If someone did object, then the "mess" I think I am improving it can always be left as it is or archived. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please strike out "Guy Macon you wrote" and replace it with "OhioStandard wrote." Thanks!

Done Sorry. -- PBS (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I don't think we want editors who are already arguing with each other quoting sections of this howto as if they were policy.

How about this?

"This is a how-to, not an official Wikipedia Guideline or Policy. Do not quote this page when accusing other editors of misbehavior"

"This how-to should not be construed as superseding or correcting any Wikipedia Guideline or Policy."

"Do not file complaints against other editors based solely on the wording of this how-to page. Instead, you should refer to official Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies."

"This is a how-to, not an official Wikipedia Guideline or Policy. As such it was designed to teach an editor what to do, not as a club for beating another editor over the head with"

[Some other way of conveying the same basic idea]

Again, I am throwing out an idea for discussion, not strongly advocating the idea. I gave several versions because it is the idea I am discussing, not the particular wording. Basically, I am looking for something a lot weaker than the usual notice paced on essay pages.

Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. Since Guy quoted me from my post to his talk page, I'd just like to make it clear that I don't support the change he proposes here. I posted to his page because I disagreed with his view that he was expressing there that he was permitted to keep reinstating talk-page refactors (indenting, mostly or exclusively, from what I gathered in skimming the WQA thread that resulted) over the objections of others.

Now I'm about as strident a supporter of WP:INDENTATION as it's possible to be; I probably refactor talk pages to conform to that standard more often than 95% of editors here, quite literally. It annoys me, for example, when people post in an existing section at flush-left, since, among other objections, that makes it impossible for subsequent editors to indicate who they're responding to. (If you're starting a new topic, pleeeeeze start a new section or subsection for it. ) Or "makes it much less easy", anyway. Ditto re the use of "bullets".

But until we make wp:indentation an actual policy - which we certainly should do, imo - we ought not to be giving anyone even the wisp of an idea that it's alright to refactor a page over other participants objections. As someone (PBS?) said, above, we already have enough fighting about the format of article pages; let's not extend that to talk pages, too. Otherwise we'll have to start creating sub-talk pages, to talk about an article's talk page, how it should be formatted, & etc. And what if someone kicks about the use of that sub-talk page? Are we then to create a sub-sub-page, to discuss that? One's mind boggles and one's sensibilities recoil in horror at the potentially infinite progression. ;-) A little anarchy on talk pages is a better alternative than self-appointed commissars, I think, even if I'd like to be one, myself. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First, the above proposed change has nothing to do with what Wikipedia policy is or should be. It is a request to make it clear that a How-to is not a Guideline or Policy. Are you arguing that a How-to is a Guideline or Policy?

Second, I am not seeing how making a new rule saying we must always honor someones objections to the refactoring of other peoples comments is any better at avoiding arguments than the current consensus, which appears to be that we must honor someones objections to the refactoring of their own comments. (Please cite a guideline or a policy - not a how-to or essay - if you think I am wrong about Wikipedia policy on this.) You may believe that WP:TPO (which is an official English Wikipedia behavioral guideline) requires it with the clause "and normally stop if there is any objection", but if you look at the list of what is allowed that follows, several items are obviously meant to be applied even if someone objects. Examples include:

"Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations."

"Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism."

Are we to refrain from removing those just because the person posting the prohibited material objects?

I may be wrong, of course, so I will ask for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not an essay, it has existed froma time before there were formal delineation between policies, guidelines and howtos. This became a howto with little discussion or input back in late 2008, it could just as easily ended up as a guideline. There has since been adebate to make it a guideline, and I eventually closed it because there did not seem to be enough momentum behind the proposal.

As a general rule it is not a good idea to repeat wording in polices and guidelines in other places as it tends to cause problems with the complicated task of keeping them synchronised.

Perhaps a hatnote is the way to go. Something along the lines of:

"For further guidance on some specific aspects of refactoring see WP:TPO".

-- PBS (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above would completely address all of my concerns. Minor suggestion; the word "some" seems clumsy. "For further guidance on specific aspects of refactoring see WP:TPO" seems better to me. Justy an opinion, though. It is OK either way. Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

February 2013

I do not think that this edit is an improvement.

• original" Moving or copying a comment to begin a new discussion in a different section
• new:Moving or copying a comment to begin a new discussion in a different section or page. Use {{rf}}; see #Templates.
• If comments are moved to a different page -- this is not refactoring (it is probably archiving), the use of the imperative is inappropriate and the, rf template (a new one) misunderstands what refactoring is.

---

• Moving text off-page:...
• Moving text off-page:... Use {{rf}}; see #Templates.
• The use of the imperative is undesirable.

---

I do not think that that is desirable to list these templates here, as their use is moribund and their use should not be encouraged.

For these reasons I am reverting these changes so that they can be discussed to see if there is a consensus for their use. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi PBS. I should have brought this to the talk page first but did not think my addition of a template table and a new template added anything new to the directive.

Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate is described at the top of the page. I merely wanted a template that showed the original page a refactor occurred for the purposes of open record so that if someone would like they could check it against the original talk page history. Nothing more or imply and as such I did not think I misunderstood refactoring or introduced an undesirable imperative.

I see this type of refactoring all the time from WikiProject to article talk pages and user talk pages to another user talk page. Perhaps my explanation was not exact but I am not talking about archiving nor do I think it's inappropriate. Where this template will be used commonly I think will be times when a talkback template is used but the editor still replies on their talk page and the discussion is broken up. I never refactor another users talk page and leave theirs the way it is but often copy their comments and insert them into the order of the discussion as it would be if the whole discussion happened in my talk. Due to this slight parsing I do not consider it archiving nor consider it so as archiving I'd the wholesale documentation of a section with out alterations.

Any thoughts or comments are welcome. Mkdw^talk 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is about refactoring talk pages, Not about Wikipedia pages such as project pages or pages guidelines, or processes pages such as WP:AfD etc or templates etc., etc. That is why it is called "Refactoring talk pages" and not "Refactoring pages". The talk pages of those Wikipedia pages are covered by this, but the primary usage is for article talk pages. As to your comment "I never refactor another users talk page" while there are some very specific cases were a users talk page would be refactored by another editor (usually to do with abuse of one type or another and usually by an admin), that is not the primary focus of this page (article talk pages like Talk:Barack Obama are the primary focus).

As to your comment "but often copy their comments and insert them into the order of the discussion as it would be if the whole discussion happened in my talk. Due to this slight parsing I do not consider it archiving nor consider it so as archiving I'd the wholesale documentation of a section with out alterations." is commonly done, but because it involves no change to the page from which the comments come, that is not usually called refactoring (to be refactoring you would have to be cut and pasting the comments not copying and pasting). As the changes to the target page involves adding text (usually at the bottom) no refactoring has taken place on that page either. -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi PBS. I'm exclusively talking about talk pages only. When I said WikiProject, I meant its talk page. I never meant it to mean the actual page, templates, AfD's or other related examples. Nonetheless a moot point. In regards to adding to the bottom, I find that it's actually not usually the case or in which I think people would use it. In my example, the refactored comments were inserted above and in the middle. As such the discussion layout had to be adjusted to allow the indents to be properly aligned to each response. I think this is a clear case of refactoring and adding a note where the inserted text came from would be a useful tool. Furthermore, the {{rf}} template can be used to simply note refactoring. In the cases you list, the refactor template can still be used as you describe in that if you move (cut and paste) a discussion from one page to another more appropriate page, the template could still be used to note the source page. I added the option of a parameter where you could input a from page if it was not the same page. I've added the template table back since I think its useful regardless of the discussion as to what constitutes as refactoring. I have re-added it in a way that does not change the instructions above (simply stating it can be used to note refactoring and nothing more). Mkdw^talk 23:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said above the templates are moribund and I do not think that advertising them is a good idea. Further I do not think that your template {{rf}} is either necessary or desirable. If someone wishes to explain that they have re refactored some text then they can type a comment, but usually refactoring is done silently and comments are unnecessary. -- PBS (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind if we seek a third opinion? I feel at this impasse the template box was an edit that affected the page content or meaning in no way shape or form. Im not even certain why declining templates is a reason to block adding a table? Why not xfd them if you don't think they should be used (and you reverted the entire table). Whether you think refactoring should be done silently (an opinion not shared on the page) is only your own personal opinion. Also, I'm not sure why you think it's not a desirable template? This seems like a case where you may think it's no use to you, but it could be useful to others. It's the reason I came here to contribute something. Adding the templates would not affect you; you wouldn't need to use them. Blocking the addition of the table does stop others from knowing about them. Why not let others decide if they find them desirable or not? It's as helpful as unsigned or {{ec}}. Mkdw^talk 19:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The more who participate the better.

I am not against adding a mention of your template on this page as is done with {{unsigned}} for example, but I do not think that mentioning {{refactored}} or {{refactoring}} is desirable. Both are moribund and their usage should not be encouraged.

• {{refactored}} because it could encourage inexperienced editors to assume that it is OK to mess around with another signature (so to justify its inclusion is worth while, please explain to me where such a template could be used were {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned2}} is not more appropriate).
• {{refactoring}} this particular template states "..but please co-ordinate on the talk page.." so it is not about refactoring talk pages.

-- PBS (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you be in agreement about adding a template table for {{unsigned}}, {{unsigned2}}, and {{rf}} for now and seeing how others feel about {{refactored}} and {{refactoring}}? Mkdw^talk 04:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that a table is appropriate. Instead mention them in the text (as is already done with {{unsigned}}. Further your inclusion of the single purpose account template is not appropriate, as that is judgemental and could be taken as as indicating an act of bad faith (not something that refactoring should involve). Also I fail to see the point of the {{rf}} template particularly the "refctored from", as most people would not consider moving text between pages refctoring they would call that "move from" or "copied from" depending if the text is a "cut and paste" or a copy and paste" (this is doubly so as most editors do not know what the term refactoring means as it is a techy expression). While we are discussing this I would request that you stop making bold edits and seek to gain a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

PBS, I dislike the use of revert as a means of enforcing your personal preference. I think it's a bit ludicrous to say it's not appropriate to have a table for templates. Help pages commonly do this such as Wikipedia:Signatures where there are multiple. The 'I don't like it' and revert and doing it while being absent for long periods of time is difficult to find a working solution. Also, rf is a template that if you don't find useful, do not use it. It does not encourage anything that is not specified on the page, Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate, the interpretation is clear why you would include a 'from'. Lastly, I work largely out of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and we had some good discussion, made some progress, and since you were gone for two weeks and seemingly did not object to the table or the use of {{rf}} I made the change and didn't hear back from you. Mkdw^talk 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Help pages may or may not have a list of templates just because some others do that is no reason why they all have to have them. I have given reasons for my reverts and you assumption of my bad faith is no justification for trying to force you preferred text through before we have reached a consensus. I have nothing against you including the template in the body of the text but it should be done in such a way that it is obvious that it is an aid and not compulsory (as was implied in this edit). -- PBS (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

my last edit had nothing compulsory and frankly listing an edit from very early on is a sign that you have not paid attention to the improvements and compromises I have slowly been making through our conversation. Early on there was no table and you never cited that the addition made them sound compulsory at all. Rather that they changed the content, so I opted for a table and strictly left the content intact. Also, you have objected to everything. Not bits or pieces but a wholesale reversion. I have not said you have made bad faith edits, merely that your auto revert to enforce your position is not leaving a lot of discussion for how's this version, or this next one, and you being away for two weeks, and then only addressing some of the improvements and not others. Anyway, let's await the 3O. Mkdw^talk 00:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit did not add the templates to the text instead you added them in a table at the bottom. "I have nothing against you including the template in the body of the text but ..." . You write above that "[PBS] never cited that the addition made them sound compulsory at all" -- see my initial statement in this section (third bullet point): "the use of the imperative is inappropriate" -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)