Wikipedia talk:Bots/Dictionary

Creation and feedback
I've just created this short dictionary of bot-related terms. Pinging everyone in the BAG for feedback.

I'll also announce this on other venues. Everyone (not just BAG members) should feel free to make additions and other edits to the dictionary. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are certain links underlined? For a page for newbies, this breaks convention in a needless way. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Explained in the intro. This is mostly to emphasize article vs non-article links. We could reverse the convention and underlink mainspace articles, and plainlink help/wikipedia though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I like the italics because it makes clear what is sending you to a definition vs. another page on-wiki, but the underlining is probably a bit unnecessary. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My idea what mostly to indicate which links are sort of general world information stuff, and which has Wikipedia-related information. Click on an underlined link, you'll be taken to a meta pages (e.g. policy, infopage, etc...). Click on a plainlink, you'll be taken to an article on the general concept. Switching the convention around might be better, given mainspace links are in the minority. I personally feel this is a useful distinction, but I'm not married to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job on this I reckon. Though I think the distinction between mainspace and non-mainspace is relatively unimportant, and doesn't justify the use of underlining. (The italics are useful, mind.) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSEUDOHEAD
I noticed that semicolons were being used to create boldface pseudoheadings contrary to WP:PSEUDOHEAD, so I altered the page to become a true definition list. Doing this in a single edit would have yielded, so I did it in two stages: -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I moved all the  to follow the semicolons, instead of preceding them. The MediaWiki software converts the semicolons into  elements within a  structure. Ideally we'd make the anchors by adding an   attribute to the  tag, but that's not possible without rewriting the whole thing in HTML. Hopefully  and other users of screen-reader technology find the use of the  template acceptable.
 * 2) I prefixed all the definitions with a colon, these are converted by the MediaWiki software into  elements also within a  structure (this is the true intent of colon markup, its more common use for indenting is problematic but longstanding). I also removed all blank lines so that there is a single  enclosing the whole list, instead of lots of small lists.
 * I hate it that 'proper' code gets so unreadable sometimes. That being said, WP:PSEUDOHEAD says semi colons should be used for definition lists, which is exactly what this is. See Manual of Style/Lists. So I'm not sure those two edits were needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They were necessary per WP:LISTGAP. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they make the list much easier to read for me. Thanks very much, . The only minor problem is that there's a new HTML list before the "bot coder / bot maintainer" entry, but I can't figure out why that is and there's probably no way to fix it without using raw HTML. Graham 87 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the ordered list which was present, since it was unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that works. Graham 87 16:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I that a single colon on a line of its own would prevent a split in the list. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem was that your previous version used the form described in the red "Incorrect" column of WP:PSEUDOHEAD, I altered it to use the form described in the bottom two rows of the green "Acceptable" column. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that "incorrect version" refers to pseudo headers, i.e. things that act like subsections but don't appear in the TOC, not a list of definitions, which to my understand it was. Anyway, not that important, just annoying that the code is much less readable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's about semantics. In a definition list, every entry (or "group") has two components: the term being defined and the definition of that term. In HTML, these are [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-dt-element the  element] and [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-dd-element the   element] respectively; using Wiki markup, the lines begin with a semicolon and colon respectively. When all these entries are placed together, with no blank lines, they are organised into a single structure, wrapped in [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-dl-element the   element]. Using blank lines between the entries breaks one coherent list into thirty or so separate lists, each containing a single group. Omitting the colons before the definitions of the terms means that those are not part of the definition list at all, but become ordinary paragraphs of text, and can no longer be considered to be definitions: the association is lost. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah so, you're referring to this part, rather than wanting to convert ;word to word, gotcha. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64@undefined Would a list like this also work?


 * Word 1
 * Definition 1 ...

? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Word 2
 * Definition 2 ...
 * ? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It might work. I'm a little worried about putting the anchor into what is semantically the preceding definition, albeit at the end of that definition. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that semantically it's shit, and I'm not too worried about upsetting HTML overlords if it means it's easier for us to maintain/edit/read. However, I wonder if this (along with the empty : lines) causes accessibility issues for screen readers and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's one for you! Perhaps too. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, it'd be fine. Graham 87 17:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Greetings from Wikimania 2017!) I can't see anything that's likely to be a practical problem, despite being less than perfect semantically. In this case, I'd chalk it down as "not worth worrying about". --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done then, if only for enhanced code readability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Making editing easier
I introduced section headings, to make editing definitions easier, rather than opening the whole list every time. User:Anomie objected that the headings were "annoyingly larger and bolded" so I have changed them to level 5. It would be a possible alternative or addition to break up alphabetically, but since half the list starts with B it might need a little balancing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC).


 * It's a perfect example of a list of definitions, and so we have deliberately marked it up as a definition list, both for semantics and for accessibility; concerning the latter, we sought the advice of accessibility experts like and . See the section directly preceding this one. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also you can't jump from level 2 headings to level 5 headings (per MOS:GOODHEAD). My advice would be to stick with the definition list, as it's kindest to a reader, even if a little more work for an editor. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I agree with all the above. Graham 87 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well semantically it is all over the shop, not least with the anchor issue you raised above, which I'm sure could be resolved. I wouldn't worry too much about GOODHEAD on a non-reader facing page either, if the excessive bolding is offending someone.  However, let us leave it as a (mangled) definition list, for now at least.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Well semantically it is all over the shop, not least with the anchor issue you raised above, which I'm sure could be resolved. I wouldn't worry too much about GOODHEAD on a non-reader facing page either, if the excessive bolding is offending someone.  However, let us leave it as a (mangled) definition list, for now at least.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC).


 * You may enjoy from the keyboard of User:SMcCandlish.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC).


 * I'd be more than happy to see your proposed resolution. One possibility would of course be to place the anchors inside the :
 * which produces semantically and functionally accurate markup, but looks a bit of a mess to the editor.
 * I'm afraid we have to worry about GOODHEAD on a non-reader facing page because we must not be found to be ignoring editors like who use screen readers. If excessive bolding on level 3 headers is offending anyone, they can fix that by registering an account and modifying their common.css to taste, as I have. Whatever the mangling is that you've spotted, please discuss it; I'm more than happy to work with you to fix it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly relaxed with the simple positioning you suggest, since editors are likely to be fairly technically aware.  This, or variants, was what I had in mind, but I hadn't tested anything.
 * I may be misunderstanding but it looks to me as if the dt element should only contain one and only one headword, and dd one definition element thus:
 * I may be misunderstanding but it looks to me as if the dt element should only contain one and only one headword, and dd one definition element thus:

21:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * bot flag
 * bot-flag
 * A flag used by bots
 * A flag with a bot on it
 * It seems acceptable to use a dd for different types of information, eg to indicate part-of-speech.
 * I'm not sure how GOODHEAD is an accessibility issue in terms of skipping levels, all it has to say on the subject is Screen readers and other assistive technology can only use headings that have heading markup for navigation. (This is precisely what definition lists don't have!)
 * You are correct that people can futz with their CSS if they don't like something, but I was reluctant to suggest this, as that's what people do to me whenever I raise the accessibility issue of small text. While small text is an issue for me, that is never the reason I raise it.
 * If we resolve the anchoring issue, we can also remove the empty dd sections (which I guess are for editors, not readers). Especially the one with the HTML comment warning not to remove it, which I am pretty certain is redundant to the next empty dd in any case.
 * It's also worth noting that the dl gets broken for the table and a new one starts afterwards. Similarly we nest some dls in the "editor-hostile wikitext" section, which contain values without names, abusing dd as an indent.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Anchors are for both. If an editor links to WP:BOTDICT, the reader gets taken to the correct entry. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Erm, both readers and editors? Sure, but the current layout is for ease of reading of the editor.  The result being that the anchors, which are semantically null, having no palpable content, create another empty(ish) dd for the previous dt.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC).


 * If you put  on a new line and preview it, you just need to use the browser inspector to see that it produces the  accurately.
 * The  element is quite unconcerned about what text it contains; see the W3C spec, "The dl element represents a description list of zero or more term-description groups. Each term-description group consists of one or more terms (represented by dt elements) and one or more descriptions (represented by dd elements." So it's quite flexible about numbers of elements, there's just a requirement of at least one dt and at least one dd per group. Have a look at some of the examples on that page as well.
 * Since some screen readers can summon up spoken lists of headings to allow more convenient navigation within a page, we need to make sure we don't trip them up by skipping levels when the behaviour of a screen reader becomes undefined. That's why it's an accessibility issue.
 * I can understand your reluctance to piss people off by suggesting they fix aesthetic considerations themselves without causing problems for screen reader users. Nevertheless, I've spent far too much time defending the visually impaired from egregious thoughtlessness to be worried muchly about sparing the feelings of the perpetrators.
 * I know the table breaks the list into separate  lists (see my edit summary when I moved it), but no matter what I tried, I couldn't fix that using wiki-markup. You may have more luck than I.
 * Maybe we need a sandbox to fiddle with the markup? Let me know if decide to have a bash at it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we should probably do that - but I have to deliver a presentation tomorrow, so it won't be now.
 * While the markup "works" (almost?) regardless of the content of the dd/dt the spec says Each term within a term-description group must be represented by a single dt element. The descriptions within a term-description group are alternatives. Each description must be represented by a single dd element.
 * Other documentation [the version 5.0 spec] makes this even clearer [though it is more relaxed about having a trailing dd, or a leading dt].
 * It might also make sense to uses dfn to provide the anchors.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC).


 * If you want to fix the table, HTML-style table markup all on one line should work:
 * HTH. Anomie⚔ 11:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * HTH. Anomie⚔ 11:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "bot"
If we are being descriptive, rather than prescriptive, the expression "bot" is often used to refer to an account which is perceived as a bot. For example "Helpful Pixie Bot" is considered a bot. The software it has run is multifarious, or as the current definition would have it Helpful Pixie Bot is many bots. Moreover some of the software is run by other bots, for example AWB and PyWikiBot are both used by many bots (in the colloquial sense). To suggest that Monk Bot and Crystal Bot are the same bot because they both use AWB is absurd on its face.

Therefore I propose we re-add the secondary definition:


 * bot
 * An account that performs exclusively (or almost exclusively) automated edits.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough  21:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

"Wikipedia:SPECTRUM" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPECTRUM&redirect=no Wikipedia:SPECTRUM] 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  until a consensus is reached. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No longer a need for italics on internal cross-references
The use of for internal cross-reference links within a glossary uses a dotted underline style, so it makes all the italicization of these links superfluous. Would just as soon remove the italics, for easier reading.

PS: I forgot to mention it, but I already fixed the issue with not properly handling input like ; it was because someone had put code in it to case-twiddle just the first letter instead of the entire string like the base  template does. So, the instances in the page that had to be reverted due to producing strange mixed-case  anchor attempts are now fixable. The template also supports no to turn of lower-casing entirely in the case of a proper name where there would be no utility in having a lower-cased any for that name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we remove gli, then we should return to the previous format of italicized bluelinks. There needs to be a clear indication that these are internal (to this page) links. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the point being we have a template for internal glossary links that is cleaner code than doing bunch of manual  links and uses a unique CSS style to indicate internal-to-the-glossary linking, without having to make use of italics which look like emphasis and can have so many other meanings (titles of works, non-English terms, etc., etc.). Right this moment, the page is doing both at once, and would be improved by just removing italics around the terms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: To put it another way, does the "emphasize article vs non-article links" feature you opened this page with in the first thread. I had the same idea when I first came up with the template and the rest of the template-formatted glossary stuff so long ago (initially to get around the problem of wikicode list markup being so brittle, and using the huge Glossary of cue sports terms as the testbed). It's served us well, at least at the glossaries that have adopted it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Text tweak against wikilawyering
I'm not sure why has an issue with this fix, but has requested going over it on the talk page.

The current wording (in pertinent part, and with the propose difference emphasized) is:

This has the problem that it is very easy to misinterpret as meaning (and encourages wikilawyering to mean, and copy-pasting out of context to wrongly convince others that it means) that "changing [parameter spacing], or changing templates from single line to multiline, and vice versa" "edit warring on presentation" and in and of itself a form of disruptive cosmetic editing, as in "It says changing template whitespace is not okay." This is not at all the intended meaning, and would not reflect actual practice. (It is quite routine to re-format vertical citations in mid-article body to be horizontal so that the paragraph structure in the code is clearer, and to fix horizontalized infoboxes back to the canonical vertical style, and to normalize citation whitespacing within the article. Objections virtually never happen. The only issue is if Editor A does for some reason object to it at a particular article and Editor B keeps doing it there anyway, instead of working it out on the talk page.) Someone with a linguistics or logic background would understand that the entire "e.g." parenthetical is both tied to the "although edit warring on presentation" clause and only applicable under the condition "edit warring on presentaton", but many of our editors are frankly not that good at parsing complex sentence structure (it's why we have to fix so many confused and confusing sentences in our articles).

This is easily fixable, at no cost of any kind, by just tweaking the syntax slightly:

This would obviate any possibility of such confusion or wikilawyering, since a "to change ..." construction is obviously fragmentary and is necessarily dependent on the previous material "edit warring". Headbomb says "I really don't see how this is an improvement", so I have explained clearly how it is an improvement, though this was pretty clear from my own edit summaries in the first place. PS: I honestly don't think I should have to explain basic copyeding like this in such detail to not get reverted on it. This is not usual at all; I get reverted on such matters maybe two or three times even in WP:P&G material, and it's almost always resolved immediately by a tweak or explanation. I have a lot of experience in closing wikilawyering loopholes (comes from a career in policy analysis and a later one in coding and technical documentation). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "It is quite routine to re-format vertical citations in mid-article body to be horizontal so that the paragraph structure in the code is clearer", indeed it is routine to do that. What is not routine, is to edit war over it. And changing 'changing' to 'to change' changes nothing to that fact, nor is not more easily understood. There's also no way to selectively quoted this passage to make it look like it's OK to edit war over it. Additionally, as was pointed out, changing 'changing' to 'to change' breaks the parallelism of the sentence which needs to match the tense of "edit warring". &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to also have a lot of experience with writing confusing statements and concerning yourself with things no one else is concerned about. At a quick search I was unable to find anywhere where someone has tried to quote this as you claim someone might. Is this a case of YAGNI? Anomie⚔ 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a case of never, ever leave a loophole open; even if a big consensus discussion about someone's attempt to misuse the wording this way were likely, even dead certain, to conclude against their viewpoint, it is a discussion that should simply never have to happen. I'm completely bewildered by your stonewalling on this, and it's starting to feel like this is a personal vendetta of some kind when you say thing like "confusing statements and concerning yourself with things no one else is concerned about". More substativenly: It does not break any parallelism of any kind in this construction. (A previous poor edit of mine did do that, by making the first "changing" be "to change" and forgetting to do it to the second, but that was obviously a typo and I already fixed it. You're now holding against me a error as if it were still present.) There is no connection at all between the -ing of "edit warring" and the -ing of "changing"; they're in completely separate structures. If this rule were different, and said something like "edit warring on presentation (such as the removal of ...)", using an utterly different syntax, still nothing would break, because there's not a connection of any kind between that -ing and anything in the parenthetical. There's noting faintly broken about a general flow of "edit warring ... to change [something]". It's perfectly normal English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no loophole here, and the meaning is rather obvious. Anyone going "see, the bot policy says that edit warring over "changing |parameter=value to | parameter = value" is not acceptable, it doesn't say that edit warring over "to change |parameter=value to | parameter = value" is unacceptable" won't be here very long. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone would be more apt to try something like 'WP:BOTDICT is against "changing to  .. or vice versa", so ... [rant here].'  Someone who checked very quickly would see that wording in there (the words "changing [template something something] ... is not acceptable" seem to leap out) and they may be inclined to agree with the claimant if they didn't read it closely. The "to change" version, even on a half-attentive skim, suggests that this is fragementary and is tied closely to the wording before it. You seem to be overestimating people's reading comprehension and underestimating the wikilawyering lengths that some will go to get their way on citation template formatting nitpicks, in ways that are actually contrary to the wording and intent of WP:CITESTYLE but which hardly anyone will ever will do anything about or even gainsay. That they don't seem to have discovered this relatively young page yet as something to try to use as a wedge doesn't mean they never will. The present wording gives them a mischief-making tool. Not one they could wield long-term in some tedious "Don't you  touch the citations in my FA" nonsense, if (and that's an assumption) the dispute attracted significant input from others; but certainly enough to be a time- and goodwill-wasting stonewall. If the wording were tweaked as I propose, this would be more difficult and less likely to trick anyone into buying it and dragging the discussion out or even helping it come to a conclusion it should not. Don't underestimate, either, the lengths that certain WP:VESTED-leaning editors will go to when backing up a wikibuddy who is trying to maintain undue control over every aspect of an page.) Anyway, what happened to your own "Everyone (not just BAG members) should feel free to make additions and other edits to the dictionary" in the opening thread? I certainly don't feel free to do so, but severely gate-kept, over a tiny copy-edit you don't think makes a significant difference, but which you can't demonstrate to be faulty in any way. This isn't very consonant with WP:EDITING, WP:DONTREVERT, WP:PRESERVE, etc., etc.   It interestingly turns out that all of the wording in question was written by you, and added on 18 June 2019, with no discussion at all. So here's an idea: let's just delete the whole parenthetical between "edit warring on presentation" and "is not acceptable", since it's completely unnecessary. This would not substantively change the meaning or intent of the "cosmetic edit / substantive edit" entry at all, would make it more concise, and would get rid of the potential wikilawyering issue even more completely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "you don't think makes a significant difference, but which you can't demonstrate to be faulty in any way"
 * Pot, meet kettle. There is no issue with the current wording, so there is no reason to change it. As for the 'don't you dare touch the citations in my FA' attitudes of some, these people are right, per WP:CITEVAR. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They are not. CITEVAR doesn't cover spacing within citation templates. We've had multiple RfCs about that, and the answer was "no". "I don't think it's an improvement" or "I don't think there's a reason for the change" isn't really a valid reversion and stonewalling rationale. We're allowed to make textual changes here and unless they are demonstrably worse (which is not the same as "I don't think it's demonstrably better") they should not be reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have a vendetta against you personally. But I also don't care for long, wikilawyering rants even when they claim to be trying to prevent hypothetical future wikilawyering. Personally Special:Diff/1195435084 had reached the "🤷 I don't care enough" point where I still find the change slightly awkward but I'd leave it as not worth arguing over, but then Headbomb did so and this talk page discussion started. My reply here was pointing out the hypothetical nature of your reasoning that you had presented as if it were non-hypothetical, and poking at your appeals to your authority. Anomie⚔ 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't appealed to any authority. This seems to boil down to: you didn't care, but now you do, because someone you like better said they do, and you're siding with him because something about my argument set you off, something in an argument that didn't need to be made in the first place, because the edit was well explained in the edit summary and the reversion rationale, including its exegesis above, amounts to just "I don't like it". Okay. More to the point, though, neither of you have responded to any point I raised in the substantive material in my last post on this subject. I've laid out (again, in more detail, and cutting through straw man stuff about arguments no one would actually make) a rationle why the extremely simple text change is at least a marginal improvement, and alternatively proposed a more drastic but even better improvement of removing the useless material that is at issue in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't think I get reverted on such matters maybe two or three times even in WP:P&G material, and it's almost always resolved immediately by a tweak or explanation. I have a lot of experience in closing wikilawyering loopholes (comes from a career in policy analysis and a later one in coding and technical documentation). is appealing to your own authority? Nor did I say or imply I like Headbomb better; what I said is that Headbomb objected to the wording, which lead to your long wikilawyering rant here on the talk page, and now I'm replying to that while not really caring about "changing" versus "to change". Anomie⚔ 14:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not an appeal to authority, its an expression of surprise at being stonewalled on copyediting trivia, even after detailed explanation of the ratonale, as if I'm some IP editor who doesn't know what he's talking about or doing here. How could it be an argument to authority when both you and Headbomb have about the same WP tenure that I do, with only a few months' difference? Sheesh. I notice that you again dodged the question, so I'll repeat it below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no difference between the two versions (except "to change" doesn't match "edit warring" verb form). If such a tiny wording change makes any difference, then the whole sentence needs to be rewritten. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would work too, at least in theory. So would just deleting the unnecessary and editorializing parenthetical: (e.g. changing to, or changing templates from single line to multiline, and vice versa). The material would more simply read: They may improve the, although edit warring on presentation is not acceptable. Then the entire problem is solved, along with some WP:CREEP reduction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not editorializing, that's giving an example of what a trivial/cosmetic change in presentation is. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's two examples. Why do you think they are necessary?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because historically, cosmetic edits are some of the most contentious, and giving an example of what those are, like making changes to spacing preferences, helps to reduce drama. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which brings us full circle. The exact way this is presently written is likely to drama of a particular kind at some point instead of avoid or reduce it. Taking a cue from Hellknowz, then, it could just be rewritten, as something like:  That would have the major parseability benefit of not splitting up "edit warring over presentation is not acceptable" with a long and detailed parenthetical in the middle of it. Uses your preferred -ing form, and adds another point of parallel construction since you seem to favor that. (Side quibble: using "edit warring over" instead of "edit warring on" would actually better match common internal usage. A war over/about/for something and a war on/against something are different idioms.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The exact way this is presently written is likely to cause drama of a particular kind at some point instead of avoid or reduce it."
 * The fact that we've been drama-free on cosmetic edits since the Magioladitis ARBCOM case points to otherwise. This does not need a rewrite. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion that it "does not need" this isn't a substantive objection; you have not shown that it would be worsened by the change in any way, nor refuted that it would be improved by it, both as to clarity of intended meaning and as to ease of understanding (by not splitting a subject away from its verb).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)