Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Writing better articles page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proper archive |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Remove “faults”?
I wonder if anyone else agrees that it would be a good idea to remove the slightly derogatory / superior tone of this section: “Similarly, avoid news style's close sibling, persuasive writing, which has many of those faults and more of its own, most often various kinds of appeals to emotion and related fallacies.” Satchel Kay (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:PCR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:PCR 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Wikipedia:PCR until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Surprising" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:Surprising 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § Wikipedia:Surprising until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:PCR
FYI, in the section Provide context for the reader, "WP:PCR" no longer redirects there. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_16#Wikipedia:PCR. Fine with me if you can change it back or make appropriate modifications here. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Liz, User:TechnoSquirrel69, On second thought, I used the "what links here" tool on the redirect page to find the pages where the shortcut is used. There are a considerable number of pages that use the shortcut to refer to the section of this page. See for example [1]. You can find how the shortcut is used on one of those pages by doing an edit-find for PCR. You might consider changing the redirect back to what it was. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Bob K31416, I still stand by the sentiment of my nomination statement at RfD that I see the initialism used far more often to refer to the user right than this page. We could add a hatnote to Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes to alleviate potential confusion caused by the change. It would be out of process at this point to revert to the old target, but you could renominate it at RfD of you disagree with the outcome of the discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where did I go wrong? From the "what links here" page it looked to me that the shortcut was used much, much, much more for this context section. ??? As it stands now, all those links indicated by "what links here" are now broken. Well, it looks like another active Wikipedia discussion would be involved in something I'm not that familiar with if I renominated and that's not for me. From what I've heard so far I have no idea what's going on, with regard to a good reason for breaking all those links. If you can clarify the situation, I would appreciate it. In any case, thanks for trying to help and that about does it for me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:PCR redirect has pointed to this page since 2008, so I'm not surprised the what links here list is more full of uses referring to this page — the correct target until recently — than anything else. I don't have any data to support my anecdotal experience about the usage of the initialism in editing circles. Out of an abundance of caution, I've added the hatnote, which should help anyone following those links in the older pages. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate that. I started a talk section What links here that you may be interested in. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:PCR redirect has pointed to this page since 2008, so I'm not surprised the what links here list is more full of uses referring to this page — the correct target until recently — than anything else. I don't have any data to support my anecdotal experience about the usage of the initialism in editing circles. Out of an abundance of caution, I've added the hatnote, which should help anyone following those links in the older pages. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where did I go wrong? From the "what links here" page it looked to me that the shortcut was used much, much, much more for this context section. ??? As it stands now, all those links indicated by "what links here" are now broken. Well, it looks like another active Wikipedia discussion would be involved in something I'm not that familiar with if I renominated and that's not for me. From what I've heard so far I have no idea what's going on, with regard to a good reason for breaking all those links. If you can clarify the situation, I would appreciate it. In any case, thanks for trying to help and that about does it for me. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
"Let's suppose..."
Today I edited out an instance of "Let's take ...." citing MOS:LETS. Only there is no policy that deprecates such a formulation. Is it not a tone failure? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)