Wikipedia talk:Taking it outside
 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Stupid[edit]
This is stupid. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a bit pointless, but hardly worth deleting. Radiant_>|< 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing here that is not already covered by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. This is just a short cut to communicate that long-winded conversations decrease the amount of participation of others. It is meant to help people get the issues without having to read through pages of discussions. As such, I don't think it is stupid or pointless. I don't mind it being critiqued. If you care to say what you find stupid or pointless, I'd be happy to hear it, but a one word dismissal is not constructive -- Samuel Wantman 06:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I tend to consider such pages pointless, is that people with good social skills don't need to read this since they already do what's here, and people with lacking social skills likely won't find the page. It is certainly not a bad idea, but writing it down here is not really going to change the way people behave. I would certainly not call it stupid. Radiant_>|< 11:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Pointless? Perhaps. If people started to do this sort of refactoring, and put WP:TIO in the edit summary, people might come here, and the practice might become more common. At least that was the impetus behind writing it. -- Samuel Wantman 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- In Ausssie English this means to fight outside so mothing gets broken inside.
- Pointless? Perhaps. If people started to do this sort of refactoring, and put WP:TIO in the edit summary, people might come here, and the practice might become more common. At least that was the impetus behind writing it. -- Samuel Wantman 11:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I tend to consider such pages pointless, is that people with good social skills don't need to read this since they already do what's here, and people with lacking social skills likely won't find the page. It is certainly not a bad idea, but writing it down here is not really going to change the way people behave. I would certainly not call it stupid. Radiant_>|< 11:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is nothing here that is not already covered by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. This is just a short cut to communicate that long-winded conversations decrease the amount of participation of others. It is meant to help people get the issues without having to read through pages of discussions. As such, I don't think it is stupid or pointless. I don't mind it being critiqued. If you care to say what you find stupid or pointless, I'd be happy to hear it, but a one word dismissal is not constructive -- Samuel Wantman 06:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Enlil Ninlil 16:56 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Confirming that this is true. "taking it outside" means to fight. - Borofkin 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Some would always like to argue. The saying is right perhaps: "Our ideas are like children – no matter how much you admire somebody else’s, you still love your own the best." --Bhadani 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is pointless and redundant. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Some would always like to argue. The saying is right perhaps: "Our ideas are like children – no matter how much you admire somebody else’s, you still love your own the best." --Bhadani 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Change[edit]
Taking it outside means taking the article off wikipedia, where all of the stupid selectively enforced rules don't apply. Here are my diffs. travb (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)