Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages/Archive 3

WP:3O
Hello, PBS and I are seeking a 3O in regards to adding a template and a table to the page. Having been a 3O previously, I know reading a wall of text is sometimes daunting. I have proposed that PBS and I each wrote a brief section laying out our arguments and a 3O can provide feedback.

Mkdw

 * Regarding the table at Refactoring talk pages Table (other link was reverted. Tables are fairly common for listing related templates and also by showing their output. I would say a large number of Wikipedia help pages do this such as Signatures, Barnstars, Unsigned, etc. To revert it and suggest it's inappropriate seems like a matter of personal taste with a precedent to the contrary.
 * Regarding the templates. PBS and I have gone back and forth about which templates should be well either on the table or even mentioned.
 * even though it's mentioned on the page has been contested.
 * I'm fine with leaving it out but it seems weird that it's a template that is not deleted and related to the topic of refactoring but not included. If PBS thinks its moribund and wants to discourage its use, he should nominate it for XfD, rather than reverting references to it in my opinion.
 * , like unsigned, is a note that something has been refactored and links to the page about refactoring. It has a field which allows it to specify the source page in the case of - one of the four bullet points of refactoring at the top of the page . The template does not encourage action that is not described on the page, and if an editor does not know what refactoring is, it provides a link. Not having it because an editor could misuse it is a poor argument since the same could be said about nearly everything.


 * In summary, PBS' arguments are mostly 'I don't like it' arguments as the template box and templates do not change the instructions, content, or how refactoring will be done. The additional argument that refactoring should be done secretly is not reflected in the page instructions. Originally the templates were inserted and not using table, but that was reverted because it changed the instructions of the page, so I made a table and omitted content change (weeks ago), and that was reverted. I simplified the table and removed some objectionable templates. That was reverted. PBS has said he has nothing against mentioning  for example, but later would become anti-template again, and meanwhile told me to stop making bold edits. So a 3O would be greatly appreciated. If the 3O does decide to look into the full discussion, checking the edit summaries and the incremental differences in each change should be noted too.  Mkdw talk 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

PBS
The reasons for my objections are listed in detail in the last section and before any further discussion takes place I would appreciate it if you would strike through your accusations of my bad faith "In summary, PBS' arguments are mostly 'I don't like it" -- PBS (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing 'bad faith' with types of arguments. WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT are not about bad faith at all, and I didn't mean for you to take it that way. I'm simply classifying how I perceive your position. Through out the discussion, you've gone back and forth for a variety of reason, but mostly citing 'undesirable' or 'moribund'. At one point you said "I am not against adding a mention of your template" but then after I added it back to "I fail to see the point of the template" and reverted it. They were added to the content body, as you cited a very old version where I wasn't as familiar, to my offer of a table instead and not changing the content, to back to reverting the table and saying to add it to the content... I'm simply saying that it seems like I don't like it or I don't understand it are the basis for your argument since the others are addressed in the instructions of the page, none of which the templates change.  Mkdw talk 00:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "how I perceive your position" then you mean "I think PBS' arguments are ..." not "PBS' arguments are". Please make the requested strike out. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything I have said has not been out of incivility or impoliteness. Adding an 'I think', while grammatically correct, does not make the sentence more polite or change the meaning in any way. That is simply the formal style of writing I have become accustom. I think is a qualifier for reiterating opinion. The above is my statement and attributed, not cited or quoted. Unless you are unclear that the above is my own statement, and not referring to an external position such as a law or a natural indisputable fact, the use of "I think" is overly used and often discouraged. I had a university English professor that would red ink our usage of "I think" in obvious attributed statements. The use of 'I think' is not related to this discussion and we should stay on track and not get into a sidebar about civility or writing style. No one is being uncivil, and if you feel that way, please take my assurances here that I am not and doing the best to present my argument in a debate. Mkdw talk 18:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wanting to give a third opinion
Hi guys. I came here to give a third opinion but it is quite hard to see who thinks what, amongst the back and forth above. Specifically, Mkdw has provided a helpful summary but PBS has not.

If PBS could give a summary that would be great. One thing I am interested in is: Do you object to the table giving templates or do you just object to the text added to the main text, which links to the section with the table and includes the words "or page"?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am against mentioning the templates refactored or refactoring on this page. I think that there are serious problems with them, but the are moribund (have not been used since they were created back in 2006) so let sleeping dogs ....
 * I am not against adding a mention of Mkdw template (rf) on this page, as part of the advise within the text -- as is done with unsigned for example -- but it should not be done as it was initially as an imperative:
 * [imperative addition of] ("or page" is also a problem see next bullet point).
 * I do not think that the usage of rf with a "parameter to indicate refactoring if across multiple pages" (as in the example, ) is helpful because most editors consider refactoring to be something that happens on a page. Moving text between pages is either described as "copying text" "moving text" or "cutting and pasting" etc it is not called refactoring between pages.
 * --PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we are discussing. The question should be whether it would be useful to add usage information for rf and Unsigned and Unsigned2 to WP:REFACTOR. I cannot see a reason they should be added—how would they help? There are lots of templates and redirects, and not all of them are helpful. A general how-to guide like this should only mention templates that editors are encouraged to use. I have not studied REFACTOR for a while, but a lot of the current wording looks dubious (anyone refactoring complex discussions for "clarity and readability of a page" will be reverted instantly). I often see junk added to a talk page, and remove it completely with a suitable edit summary—replacing trolling or spam with a "refactored" template would not be helpful. If inserting section headings or adjusting indents (rarely I hope!), again a template would not help. Removing personal attacks involves either removing the entire message, or just the text in question. Isn't redacted used for that (despite its docs)? The unsigned templates are not really part of "refactoring" (although correctly mentioned in the guide)—the documentation for using unsigned should be elsewhere (like unsigned or WP:TPG). Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're describing one section of refactoring, the removal of incivil content, but that's not where I have suggested nor any of the other templates would be used. It's the last two, "restructuring of discussions for clarity" and "elocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate". The edit I proposed did not change the 'dubious' instructions, and it was made very clear to me that it was inappropriate to do so, so I really see my edit as a minor one and a note template than a functional one that actually helps refactor a page like . I really consider it a minor change. We're talking about an optional template and a table on the page. Not the fundamentals of how effective refactoring and its instructions are, or the use/misuse of it. Adding  for those who want to note refactoring, much like those who want to note . Like, I would say it helps people resolve edit conflicts, and edit summaries are usually used, but its a note on the page that might not be face value obvious with out checking the history of something that happened technically.  Mkdw talk 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PBS, if you're still around, I would like to find the right compromise and not leave things as they were left which was not a general outcome satisfactory for either you or I. Mkdw talk 07:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)