Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bitter stories made sweet

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Project pages regarding editing others' talk page comments


This project has been around for about a year now and seems rather inactive ... but it seems that its main goal is to encourage editors to perform edits that go against WP:TPO. Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Long stories made short is very similar. It also encourages inappropriately editing comments made by others. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find. I have added it into this discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Consider fixing. There is merit in some points, worthy of an essay, but the notion of a game of editing others' posts like that is not ok. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please read the page more carefully.  It is absolutely in harmony with WP:TPO.  It does not encourage the editing of other editors' comments, but it encourages supplementing them with improved versions.  Inactivity is irrelevant.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually essentially the same thing. The editor who wrote the initial comment still wrote it, and the "sweetening" editor is still adjusting it and/or distracting readers from the original comment of the comment poster. If anything, I would recommend something sort of in line with SmokeyJoe's suggestion and convert these to essays so that readers of these pages don't get the wrong idea. Steel1943  (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added to each page a hatnote with an essay template, effectively emphasizing that they are essays. They were already categorized in Category:Wikipedia essays.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete both - The sentiment in these essays directly contradicts the talk page guidelines regarding editing the comments of others. Refactoring is appropriate in certain circumstances, but not in the manner that these essays describe. An attempt could be made to "fix" these, but the very notion of censoring and condensing (i.e. "sweetening" and "shortening") the comments of others in general is irreconcilable with the relevant behavioral guideline. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To "fix" it would mean converting it to an essay on how to comment more effectively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added to each page a hatnote with an essay template, effectively emphasizing that they are essays. They were already categorized in Category:Wikipedia essays.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I'm intrigued by the idea. I'm not sure how we're able to talk about it in the abstract without having seen it at work. I'd be curious to see a practical trial and hear what the editors involved thought about it. Uanfala (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those who have not noticed it, I reproduce here an excerpt from Bitter stories made sweet.
 * For example, a bitter post and its sweetened version might appear as follows.


 * A post can be shortened and sweetened simultaneously.


 * It should be clear that there is no editing of another editor's comments. Those comments remain unchanged.  The new version is simply added below the old version, without replacing it.  As a result, after a long comment that might have been skipped altogether (WP:TLDR), other editors have an opportunity to read a condensed version.  Also, where an editor might have stopped reading a comment at the first sign of insulting language or profanity (WP:CIVIL), other editors have an opportunity to read a version without those features in it.  These essays do not contradict the talk page guidelines about editing the comments of other editors (WP:TPO).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Supplementing others comments like that may come across as pointy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that it shouldn't appear attributed to the original other in that manner. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is an axample of what I imaginge by fixing. I don't find the examples particularly informative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to make similar changes to Long stories made short?
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not my intention, my intention was to illustrate what I meant by "fix". Is it palatable to you. I don't think you appreciate how easily the page is misread. Do nothing and it will be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already tried to clarify the purpose of each of the two pages. I do not see an easy way to respond to the comments of others, who still see problems.  I do not see the pages as pointy or polemic.  We seem to have differences in reading comprehension.  I have seen the differences in your illustrative revision, and I do not see an easy way to work toward a version acceptable to everyone involved.  Therefore, I have decided to abandon the two pages to the decision of the closing editor.  They were made with good intentions, for improved discussions on talk pages of Wikipedia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your subsequent edit implies that it is if not palatable, it is not choking. I think the problem can be fixed by editing, and so recommend keep.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that recommendation. Since about the end of August, my rate of edits per day has been drastically reduced, so that I can spend increased amounts of time on certain activities outside Wikipedia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe, I have some (respectful but straightforward) questions about your revision made at 01:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC). (I usually make my posts shorter than this, but this seems to be necessary for clarification.)
 * (1) Why did you remove the clarifying hatnote ("Please note: This page is about supplementing the comments of other editors, and not about editing them.")?  When I posted to WP:BSMS this statement ("For various reasons, a bitter story might be removed or collapsed."), I had mostly in mind that such editing might be done by someone else, whereas WP:BSMS is about sweetening posts that have not been removed.
 * (2) Why did you remove the welcoming statement ("Welcome to 'Bitter stories made sweet', a project for making unpleasant talk posts more pleasant.")?
 * (3) Why did you remove the paragraph about the use of personal pronouns? (It was: "The story-sweetener uses personal pronouns in the same way in the sweetened version as they were used in the bitter version, as if the writer of the bitter version were supplementing his or her own post with a sweetened version of it.")  You seem to have misunderstood its purpose.  It did not mean that personal pronouns are a factor in pleasantness.  Its purpose was to retain the original use by the editor who posted a bitter story.
 * On this aspect, the sweetening editor is analogous to an interpreter interpreting speech from a source language into a target language. If the version in the source language has words meaning "I was in London on Tuesday", then the interpreter uses words with the same meaning in the target language, instead of words meaning "She was in London on Tuesday" or "He said that he was in London on Tuesday".  The sweetening editor is analogous to a translator translating text from a source language into a target language.  Words meaning "I was in London on Tuesday" are rendered by words having the same meaning.  The text is often published with the name of the original author and the name of the translator.  The sweetening editor is analogous to a secretary typing a business letter according to what his or her manager recorded on a dictation machine.  If the manager recorded the words "I will be in London on Tuesday", then the secretary types those same words and not "My manager will be in London on Tuesday" or "My manager said that she will be in London on Tuesday".  The letter is in the "voice" of its author, the manager, and it often includes the initials of the name of the manager, followed by the initials of the name of the secretary, together on a line below the line where the name of the manager is typed.  (Identification Initials, Enclosure Notations and CC Notations in a Business Letter)
 * Similar points can be made about references to time and place.
 * (4) Why did you remove the statement about format ("The sweetened version can be at the same degree of indentation as the bitter version, but introduced by 'WP:BSMS'.")? Using the same degree of indentation helps later commenters to follow the guidelines in WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD when they reply to the sweetener (or to one of several sweeteners) or even to the unsweetened version, if they choose to do so.  Introducing the sweetened version by "WP:BSMS" helps readers to distinguish the unsweetened post from a sweetened version that follows it.  Using the recommended blank line before one's post also helps in that distinction.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Without reviewing the details at the moment, I think it all followed from the intention to preserve the underlying wisdom, but to change the advice from being to a third person instructing to add comments, to providing advice to the original upset commenter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) Because I don't think it is a good idea to direct the essay to third parties. Better to address it to the editor who makes bitter posts.


 * (2) Because I don't think third parties should make bitter posts sweet. Instead, I think posters of bitter posts should consider the advantages of being less bitter.


 * (3) No strong feelings, but I think that the point is not important, and as it was deeply invested in the style of advice to the thrid party


 * (4) Because I don't believe the essay is best presented as advocating for third parties to be doing these things at all.


 * Overall, my point was to see if editing could solve the issues, not to make a perfect version. So I rushed a bit, otherwise I might never have found the time.  I don't like directing the essay to third parties, as uninvited dispute resolving is a dangerous thing and the essay is not good enough for that, but I do like the underlying message, and am not sure I have seen it written elsewhere.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.