Page semi-protected

Help talk:Using talk pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please help me

Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim's linebreak

In the following indentation example, I don't see any difference between the paragraphs created by Jane, George and Jim, but the explanatory text seems to imply that there should be a difference. I think this explanatory text should be removed, or the example itself edited to create the described effect (Jane's & George's comments in the same paragraph, but Jim's in a separate paragraph):

Note how equally-indented comments are displayed in one paragraph. Jane and George's replies are in the same paragraph. But a new paragraph is the normal style for when the speaker changes. So to produce the normal distinction between speakers (to avoid confusion) add a linebreak first as Jim has done.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
:Not too bad.. --[[User:George]]
:Terrible. --[[User:Jim]]

How's the soup? --John

It's great!! --Jane
Not too bad.. --George
Terrible. --Jim
The relevant linebreak was removed in this edit earlier in the year, & I guess that the editor who did that hadn't read the associated text which shows that the linebreak was deliberate. I have therefore reverted the edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Constant discussions

Just a thought, probably makes no sense either, but some articles have discussions that are repeated constantly, such as genre discussions made on musician articles, and the reason for all these discussions occurring frequently is due to other discussions regarding that topic end up archived where new and inexperienced users, or even those not familiar with the artist, are unable to view these since they may be buried under the huge archives. My proposal is that for certain topics that they have either their own separate archive (somehow, no idea how like) or a separate talk page altogether or something, I don't know maybe its to complicated, or the idea would overcomplicate things, just thought I'd throw it out there. SilentDan (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

I removed the section about Threaded discussions because it is a good example of Instruction creep and, to my knowledge, has been proposed only in a WP:Essay and is not a WP:Guideline. This is way too complicated for the average Wikipedian to follow, let alone a newbie. It will chase people away from the talk pages if they are expected to follow such seemingly simple but really very arcane rules. I used to follow this format many years ago but gave it up because of its confusion: It is often hard to tell when you are answering a comment just above you or are replying to one about four paragraphs above. It is absolutely unworkable and will not to a thing to improve the encyclopedia. (I did the deletion in the spirit of WP:Bold, revert, discuss, so if you want to revert it just do so and tell why here, as I have done.) Thank you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, as you very likely know, WP:Creep is a WP:Essay. The indentation matter that I reverted you on is not WP:Creep since Help:Using talk pages is basically only an information page, not a Wikipedia policy or a guideline. It is here to inform editors how Wikipedia talk pages work. Indentation is a big part of how Wikipedia talk pages work, and it is not "way too complicated for the average Wikipedian to follow.", if, by "average," one means a non-WP:Newbie that has a lot of Wikipedia talk page experience. The information page simply points to WP:Indentation; it does not state that editors should follow what is shown at WP:Indentation. And, indeed, editors commonly do not follow all of what is stated there.
On a side note: I also replied to you on this matter elsewhere. And because of this, I will also go ahead and leave a WP:Dummy edit note in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines edit history pointing to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines about this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

indentation vs. indention

The correct term is indention, not indentation. Indention is leaving a blank space at the beginning or end of a line or lines in writing or printing. See Indentation is a hollowed, notched, or cut place, as on an edge or on a coastline. See Professionaleducator (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your own reference for indentation includes "4. indention (defs 1, 2)." indentation is the common term in the context of source code like our wikitext. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Representative Bureaucracy - Annotated Bibliography

Trondal, J., Murdoch, Z., & Geys, B. (2015). Representative Bureaucracy and the Role of Expertise in Politics. Politics & Governance, 3(1), 26-36. doi:10.17645/pag.v3i1.65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lescast (talkcontribs) 15:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)