| Revision as of 08:00, 24 October 2019 editNsae Comp (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,702 edits →Proposal: Nominate essay as a guidelineTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:09, 1 November 2019 edit undoAnywikiuser (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,797 edits →Proposal: Nominate essay as a guidelineNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| :I support this. I find the undo function necesssary but very problematic as it diminishes tools like {{citation needed}} and most of all the most basic and most accessable Misplaced Pages tool the talk page. It destroys discussion outside of the established users. It makes possible content often invisible. Reasons for undoing are too often problems with language or form, and not because of unresolveable issues. ] (]) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | :I support this. I find the undo function necesssary but very problematic as it diminishes tools like {{citation needed}} and most of all the most basic and most accessable Misplaced Pages tool the talk page. It destroys discussion outside of the established users. It makes possible content often invisible. Reasons for undoing are too often problems with language or form, and not because of unresolveable issues. ] (]) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :I would support it too. Too often, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater from a good faith edit. Inevitably there would have be some changes to fit it into the guideline format. ] (]) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Don't single out bias and undue weight as revert-worthy == | == Don't single out bias and undue weight as revert-worthy == | ||
Revision as of 12:09, 1 November 2019
 | Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives (index) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Needs better wikification, and generalization
Virtually nothing in this is linked, not to policies, guidelines, or other essays.
I have yet to see a single thing in this page that only pertains to "articles", so that would should be replaced with "pages". The essay fails in its purpose if any system WP:GAMEr feels entitled to ignore every word of it because they're editing a template or a guideline or a portal or ....
After some improvement, it may be worth trying to merge other reversion-related essays into this one, though doing so now would be premature because the above problems make this page look like a draft instead of a stable essay that's been around 3 years already.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Acceptable, unacceptable
I don't like the headings "Acceptable reversions" and "Unacceptable reversions" in this Misplaced Pages essay. It looks too much like a guideline or a policy, and these sections are not without controversy. The headings would be better as "Good reasons to revert" and "undesirable reversions" or something like that. I will make the change at some point if there are no objections here. 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, but I hope you will use parallel construction (e.g. Good reasons to revert / Bad reasons to revert) or "Desirable Reversions / Undesirable reversions". We're trying to make a point by contrasts. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- You got it. Thanks. -Jordgette 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Nominate essay as a guideline
I want to nominate this essay as a guideline. Who's with me? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am. The basic message of this essay is more deserving of being a guideline than any I've seen in a long time. Some material might need to be excluded because is written more like persuasion and explanation than guidance. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not me. And that's for the same reasons that I and others rejected the proposal to elevate WP:BRD to a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I support this. I find the undo function necesssary but very problematic as it diminishes tools like and most of all the most basic and most accessable Misplaced Pages tool the talk page. It destroys discussion outside of the established users. It makes possible content often invisible. Reasons for undoing are too often problems with language or form, and not because of unresolveable issues. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would support it too. Too often, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater from a good faith edit. Inevitably there would have be some changes to fit it into the guideline format. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't single out bias and undue weight as revert-worthy
I removed
Edits that introduce bias or undue weight should be reverted until consensus is built.
because it followed,
... a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.
and I don't see any reason that bias and undue weight need to be called out specially. They are just two of many, many problems in an article that need to be corrected, and editors should use the same standards in deciding with a reversion is appropriate as with any of the others: incorrect facts, non-notable material, unreadable language, bad grammar, etc. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with that deletion. Introducing bias into an article doesn't necessarily make it clearly worse. Another editor might agree with the tendentious edit or believe that it clarifies something. I think the wording should be restored. -Jordgette 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)