Wikibooks talk:Editing guideline

Initial text adapted from en:Wikipedia:Editing policy. --mav 07:35 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Comments? RobinH 10:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

snippet-01
re:So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an module include:
 * List is missing the obvious: Factual error or error in context, A is 'wrong', and C goes with B, but B doesn't apply in the context so neither does C. (One hopes these sophmoric gaffs happen less here than at Wikipedia! ) FrankB-&#91;&#91;User talk:Fabartus]] 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

snippet-02
''If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain wrong, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment that it is in fact wrong to inform later editors.''
 * I'd suggest exporting only the parts most likely to be duplicated as an error to the talk, with comments, before altering content. It's easy to do from within the edit window by backspacing, cutting, moving to the talk, pasting with comment. Even easier with two browser windows open, or two tabs. One useful 'safeguard' is to edit in one type browser and browse, check, monitor, extract, compare in the other. For the latter use, one of the Tabbed browsers is best. Firefox and Netscape both fail to search into the edit window, whereas IE6 does, so that is the better browser for copyedits, spelling and minor grammer corrections.
 * Since the talks can get lengthy with too much, and all content is preserved in history pages, so a paragraph on what is wrong, and a paragraph why is probably the only need 98% of the time. The histories solve the odd 2% where large recoveries are in order. The exception might be when someone attempts a drastic refactoring, but cutting that into a 'temp page' (Sandbox) rather than the talk, with a link to it in the talk (one of those 'organized common resources' mentioned in the below&mdash; information is a resource!) page.


 * Using the top of talk pages as a Organized Project page is a good idea. By that I mean place project resources, including ToDo lists, lists of who is taking on what sub-part, perhaps an outline, etc. RobinH asked me for comments herein, but I don't know enough specifics of how you all work together to get specific myself. But taking the Heading with a Roster, ToDo's, and some resources as an example, the top section would be a general precise on the aims of that module, followed by the roster which should probably include when someone generally works, Third I'd place resources such as links to other modules, categories (if you use them here) and links to outside references, etc. each to their own sub-section. Fourth, the ToDo list, which people would strike out as items get finished with signature (I like to use #, and ## items in such&mdash; helps in planning and organization, as the numbers can be referred to in talk sections following obviating confusion (of terms or task).
 * As this list or any talk section gets long, it can be archived to 'clean' the page into the archive page which matches title sections, thus archiving old business and old discussions et. al by archiving just part of a section or many sections is quite easy to do. Such tidiness also helps in keeping the obfusticating clutter away from ongoing business, it's most important feature.


 * Do retain a conclusion of a long discussion linking to the archived long parts, so others can get involved later or get back up to speed after a time away, as may pertain.
 * While this 'exercise in verbosity' is not 'On Policy' per se, it goes a long way to keeping collaboration with others ameniable and pleasant, so it might be considered as a 'potential guideline' as to how to keep talks fresh enough for everyone to keep up with developments. In this model, the old goes, and the fresh and useful stays that way without fighting clutter.


 * Last, but not least, some numbering scheme ought to prefix all sections below the fixed sections (i.e. all are categorized as 'temporary topics' even though most of each are eventually separated and archived.) The section ordinal number prefix serves notice when something no longer appears in the ordinal list of sections as it contains only expired discussions, and pertinent information is retained. FrankB-&#91;&#91;User talk:Fabartus]] 07:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

policy?
This isn't really a policy... Kellen T 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a guideline. I dont know why it has been classified as a policy. RobinH 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Guidelines"
Moved 13th May 2006 RobinH 09:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Firefox
This guideline mentions "... Firefox and Netscape both fail to search into the edit window ...", which is incorrect. I'm using Firefox now, and it seems to search and find text in the edit window (textarea) just fine. How do I fix this without getting sidetracked into yet another overly detailed "Software A vs Software B" flamefest? --DavidCary (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I also found a lack of any consensus to make this a guideline in the first place, so I've switched it back to a proposal for now. --dark lama  21:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)