Talk:Dialog (software)

Dialog boxes

Hello. Tedickey, why wouldn't the list of boxes added on this edit be an improvement? It's the only way to present the reader with what this software can do, like a "plot" section can do for movies.--MisterSanderson (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

For the usual reason: it's just a list providing the reader with no insight, none of the suggested wiki-links were topical (merely the same name). Also, Wikipedia isn't a manual. An encyclopedic approach would tie together some of the existing topics that are related rather than make a list. Offhand, I recall lists of Unix signals, functions being removed for the same reason. (By the way, writing an essay on the design and use of a given program also veers off into WP:OR, and offhand, I don't see a nice way to reorganize the list into prose without doing that) TEDickey (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Tedickey, how was the list providing no insight to the reader? Each topic had a description! It was not a mere list of boxes, but a list describing each box. What could have be done better, however, would make it a MOS:DEFLIST like specified on the Manual of Style, not using numbers, and as you said not having unrelated links. But, what you said, that the encyclopedic style necessarily requires prose, isn't true - lists are part of the Wikipedia too, without making it a manual. A manual would give instructions, and the list had no instructions on how to use each box, each required parameter, etc.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As I noted, it's a list (neither as informative as the manual page, nor a useful summary -- you might take the time to read the manual page and note a few inaccuracies in the list...) TEDickey (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Tedickey, I think it should not be as informative as the manual page, because this would make the list become the manual, and manuals are not allowed. But if the problem is just that inaccuracies exist, then it can be fixed, right? If I spot the inaccuracies and fix them, and solve the problems I already pointed above (formatting), would this make the list acceptable, in your opinion?--MisterSanderson (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)