Template talk:Usertalksuper

Please use a new
Descriptive heading== for new topics == An amusing misconception about this instruction… although the link, of course, discourage doing such a bad thing as editing the last section to create a new topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the misconception. The help p. imo, needs amendment, because I see nothing wrong with editing the last section to start a new one, provided one changes the edit summary to one appropriate for  the new material.  DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A user clever enough to make own edit summaries in /*…*/ will use  instead of  NumberOfSections. Why s/he would edit a section s/he does not indend to edit? What is wrong in WP:+, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do new users or editors who don't use edit summaries fit it? There are plenty of people who fall under those categories and they largely outnumber the users who use edit summaries. I've even seen regulars who use edit summaries that don't use the new section feature. You have to realize that not everyone uses the new section feature. New users especially are more prone to either editing the last section or pressing the edit button and placing their comment somewhere in the talk page. Therefore, placing a descriptive title then becomes helpful. Elockid  ( Talk ) 04:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, there are three ways to add comments:
 * The right way,  a.k.a. New section;
 * The lame way, marginally tolerable NumberOfSections a.k.a. editing the last section;
 * The bad way: placing new comments at random.
 * Both lame and bad ways produce bad edit summaries, which cannot be fixed later. The lame way possibly produces a correctly formed section which the bad way cannot achieve, but the difference can be leveled by a single subsequent edit of an experienced user. Some people, such as Elockid, instruct users to follow the lame way in a hope that it is easier to take than the right way. What effect does it have? It saves several edits of experienced users per newbie, but creates a population of users which believe that Wikipedia endorses NumberOfSections as a way to add new topics. And then, this population pollute edit histories with thousands of lame edit summaries which, I repeat, cannot be fixed by any effort. Conclusion: ambiguous mentioning of ==…== should be eliminated (or reworded, if somebody can do so) to avoid advertising of the lame way. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no right way. The contents of WP:Help are not policy, rules, nor guidelines. It's not even an essay which for the most parts outlines community norms. WP:Help is something we don't have to adhere to nor or required to follow in any form. Policy and guidelines dictates whats right or wrong, NOT a suggestion guide. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)