Wikibooks talk:Bots/Unstable

Definition
Trivial really... but for the less initiated, perhaps definition of the terms "RC feed" and "RC patroller" should be included? I know in a general way what these are, but it would be useful to have a formal definition... Chazz (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the current language (and a link) is clear enough? – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor cleanup
I found a few missing words and some slightly unclear phrases. I have cleaned them up a bit, without, I hope, changing meaning too much. Feel free to revert if necessary... I just have this nervous twitch. Chazz (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been called on my edits, mentioned above, to this policy, in light of Darklama's opposition to its current length. My response, which is also on my talk page, is this:


 * As I read it, what Darklama is complaining about is not the length of the individual bits, but the shoehorning of two policies together into a single article. It looks like what he is largely complaining about having both the Bot writeup, which he says is nothing new, and the Flood flag in the same policy, thus making it longer and, as it is two apparently only slightly related issues, more confusing. What I am aiming at is clarity; if it takes three words to make something clear, instead of one which leaves it somewhat confusing, I personally would take the three words.


 * Additionally, I don't see a difference of about ten words (maybe 1% of the total article length) as being significant in anyone's view as regards the length of the document. A change that makes an insignificant difference in the length at the cost of some clarity is a net loss. We want people to be able to understand the policy, don't we?


 * If you could see some way to reduce the length of the policy by 30-50%, without losing clarity, I think that would be enough to bring Darklama onside. But anything less than that is just pointless.


 * That said, if you choose to back out my edits, that is your prerogative. I won't continue an edit war. But my position remains the same: clarity in a policy must trump brevity. Chazz (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that clarity trumps brevity, which is why I think Darklama's reasons for opposing the policy are not sound. However, I did try to trim it down, rather unsuccessfully. I don't think the clarity we would lose by culling large amounts of text is worth it. So I will stand by the current version, and hope that we can come to an agreement. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way I can see to get both clarity and brevity is to split the policy into a Bot policy and a Flood Flag policy. Granted the two are very linked, still they can easily be split, which might well answer Darklama's objections.
 * That said, I think I'm going to have to bow out. This is more fight than I want to have. Chazz (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My objections are not related to having both the bot flag and flood flag in the same proposal. The issue to me is the proposal lacks clarity or sound reason for most of what is included, which I feel the verbose or length of proposal contribute to. I'm only suggesting that shorter sentences and paragraphs that are clearer could help made this proposal more clear and sound. I do not think that reducing the length of the policy would come at the expense of clarity. After Mike.lifeguard's fork I set out to simply and improve the clarity of the original version so it could be better understood quickly, which I feel was achieved. The forked version though does not have those changes, and even more was added to it borrowing from other project policies which I think fails to consider that Wikibooks does not have the same problems. I don't think policies should be trying to solve problems which the community has not expressed as being a problem in need of being solved yet. I think policies should reflect what the community wants rather than instruct or tell people what they need or have to do when the community has not shown an interest in having or making any requirements or in placing restrictions. I think because of the lack of need by the community that there is far too much instruction creep in the fork to support it in its current form. I do however support Wikibooks:Bots, because I think its easy to understand and does not attempt to place as many restrictions or requirements on bots, and allows the community to make up its own mind, like the deletion policy does, on a case by case bases. The bots policy can always be later expanded if and after the community feels that more is needed. --dark lama  23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of the two policies becoming one, as both use similar terms and are relatively closely related. At this moment in time I can't see much benefit in splitting them up. We need to be careful not to lose any of the clarity in the policies, as ambiguity has been a major problem on a number of occasions before with other policies. Reece   (Talk)   (Contributions)  17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that ambiguity has been a problem and I think maybe the proposal to adopt the unstable branch was premature, because until recently little discussion has taken place about either one really. --dark lama  23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft is up for approval as policy
The process is taking place here Policies and guidelines/Vote/Bots. The proposed text for adoption is the October 24 2008, as a policy, motion started by User:Mike.lifeguard. --Panic (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)