Retool into an Administrivia Page: Multi Part Picture

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." — Mark Twain

Edited for style :) But looks fine.

The "we do this" "we do that" language is weak writing, and those changes were supposed to shade away from "it's a good idea often" toward "often it's a good idea", which mean very different things. The overbearing "edit-it-back" strategy strongly reinforces your apparent "ownership" of the page. Really frustrating and anti-wiki to keep reverting (okay fine not-quite-reverting-but-changing-back-to-almost-but-not-quite-exactly-the-same-thing) others' edits.

edited 5th Feb '12 4:25:28 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I only did that with on line, due to making it a wall of text instead of separating the bullet point. That's not "ownership". That's trying to keep the points distinct. If you can make the wording better, go ahead. Just the bullet points are there to keep the information from lumping together.

You might notice that the text was significantly changed, and losing the bullets was only a minor consequence of that because the result wasn't really a list anymore. The "revert" was a significant alteration with an insignificant reason (restoring bullets) given. That behavior "chases people away" and is really un-wiki-like. You are edit-warring a sandbox. Whatever, again, tho.

edited 5th Feb '12 4:40:35 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Hey, I stated, even in the edit reason, why I changed that one paragraph. I didn't just change it back for no reason.

And it was a list, since it was stating distinct ways that these pictures cannot work. That is a standard format for Administrivia pages like this. Now if the way the points are written can be tweaked, that's fine. They just should be kept separate lines, as pages like that are actually meant to keep them separate.

You asked for others' input. One way to demonstrate good faith, especially considering you've been accused of being an Article Guardian, might be to not mess with them.

edited 5th Feb '12 5:07:58 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Input doesn't mean "anything and everything suggested is fine". And in case you didn't notice, I left a lot of the other changes you made, because they were fine. If I was doing what you were accusing me of, I wouldn't have left even those.

Can you stop this argument, please?

Also, is this safe to call?

Hey, I'd rather the discussion be about the content of the page, and did try to keep it about that (not claiming I succeeded though, sorry). But I won't reply to any further comment that is just an argument.

Also, this has only grown a stronger lead, so this should certainly be called.

edited 6th Feb '12 11:57:34 AM by DragonQuestZ

Consensus is to make Administrivia. Go forth and do so.

Is the sandbox page a good replacement to use?

edited 6th Feb '12 11:59:52 AM by DragonQuestZ

TBH, I think there's too much stuff there. We don't need a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons and reasons why they might be used and reasons why they shouldn't be used and blah blah blah. Just say what it is. The current description is better than the sandbox.

edited 6th Feb '12 12:04:43 PM by troacctid

The point of this is also to be a form of Useful Notes for anyone considering these. Thus we could point to this page on image picking over why we think such pictures would or wouldn't work.

If you think some of this can be paired down, that's fine, but the info has a reason. Just stating we have them would just be little more than a stub.

To start with, I apologise for failing to keep my posts civil earlier in this thread. I apologise to DQZ personally. I should have known better.

I agree with Troacctid that there is no need for any further info than is on the page as it is now. However, I agree with rodney that the language is best as neutral and succinct as possible. I think the first paragraph of the sandbox version does this better than the first paragraph of the current article, so I think they should be swapped. Other than that, I think the current article is fine. It consistently and clearly articulates why this can be useful and how it can be done, don't need anything more than that.

How about we have another crowner on what parts of each page should be in the final page (examples already have been voted out of course)?

Clocking for lack of activity.

Unlocking by request.

Zapped examples, but, is the namespace change like a rename, or is there an automated way to do it?

No automated way. Do it like you would any other rename.

Is this done?

No. I could move it to Administrivia but first I need someone to actually rewrite it to an administrative guideline since I am not quite good at writing descriptions.

There is a sandbox page linked up there. It had some controversy about it, though.

Well there hasn't been much input. If we had more, we could know better how to tweak that page.

I am locking this in 24 hours. It's sitting here doing nothing with an expired clock.

Okay, just made Administrivia.Multi Part Picture, moved the sandbox text to the page, and made the main page a redirect.

I also shortened the text a little.