CZ Talk:How to use talk pages

=Imported conversation= This conversation was transferred from Alternative medicine (theories) to begin a dialogue here. D. Matt Innis 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am responding here, Matt, to your specific export/import. Looking at the timestamps below, I can't see any way those responses are in compliance with the behavior specified in CZ:How to use talk pages.Howard C. Berkowitz 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that I missed something in the import process or are you referring to something in the conversation below? I agree that it is hard to follow, but that is the way it was on the Talk:Alternative medicine (theories) page, right? D. Matt Innis 04:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the way it was on that talk page, and it is not only hard to follow, but specifically in violation of what I understood to be policy. I requested that it not be done that way, without formally citing CZ:How to use talk pages. Are you saying that link is not CZ policy, and that I somehow erred in asking that the convention it described be followed? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order
eg. Most recent comments are added at the top of the page, with a new section title.Martin Cohen 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Short responses are appended inside sections using indents - as many as the author likes! Martin Cohen 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  I think italic is effective too.Martin Cohen 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of these methods are recommended; they are both quite outside the convention in use. I started here using short comments inside sections, which is a common technique on mailing lists. Mailing list programs, however, often preface lines with the author's identifier, leading characters, or put comments entered at different times in different colors. CZ does not support such methods, and I responded to the complaints that it made my comments hard to follow. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Howard's Original Points
''Will then be kept together, which makes it easier for others to understand a debate once the topic exceeds more than one or two sentences.Martin Cohen 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is very difficult to follow the sequence.
 * Why is top posting undesirable in electronic forums? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved Martin's response to the appropriate place and indented it. There are CZ conventions.

I've gone through the article and put a number of things into CZ formatting conventions. At the beginning, I have put the introduction into the CZ convention, which calls for no subject line, and the title of the article bolded in the first sentence.

Inline citations are preferred; the means I used to do additional citations to the same work greatly reduces the size of the references section and is easier to read. An inline citation, certainly giving title and author, is much preferred to an external link (i.e., URL).

Generally, it is best not to put potentially controversial text into a footnote. If it is an arguable point, it should be easily readable in the context where it is raised.

Also, I have deleted several subjective adjectives to people. "Respected" and the like really need to be cited, or not used. Do consider that a signed article subpage may be appropriate for some of the more essay-like comments.

When a reasonably available source, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, is cited by a secondary source, try to give enough bibliographic information so the reader has a chance to find the primary source.

Do consider consequences of extensive use of text boxes, especially with relatively dark colored backgrounds. White or very light gray backgrounds greatly increase accessibility. Just as one piece of guidance, there is a good deal of information available from implementation guidelines for Section 508 of the U.S Rehabilitation Act, which tries to minimize barriers to accessibility for users with physical disabilities. ; I will be working on a more extensive article on accessibility and usability. Incidentally, the preceding link is an appropriate use for a hard-coded external link, because the expectation is that the external source needs to be read.


 * 1) If one tries to print the document, for later perusal, on a monochrome printer, the box will come out as a black mass if the printer does not use grayscale. Even with grayscale, colors this dark will tend to make a printed copy unreadable.
 * 2) Not all users have perfect color vision. They may have the same sort of problems as a monochrome printer; they literally may not be able to read the text against the background.
 * 3) For users that have very limited or no vision, and use a text-to-speech problem, even multicolumn text can be a problem; I am considering, much as I prefer two-column lengthy bibliographies, going back to a one-column format. A text-to-speech converter usually has to be programmed to deal with tables or columns, as the default mode is scanning horizontally across the screen. The devices can usually recognize true graphics and skip over them, but this sort of text box will typically be unusable.

While I am used to embedding responses in the body of email, where there are textual ways to distinguish who said what, I have learned that method simply doesn't work on talk pages. Sometimes, it is very difficult not to do so; in such cases, please put four tildes after each inline paragraph, and perhaps copy the signature of the user to whom you are responding.

In general, it is also a courtesy, and helps understandability, to put responses in chronological order. There are cases where a responsible Editor, acting in the Editor role, may put ground rules and such at the top of a page. When replying to a general comment, even if one regards it as critical, it feels like shouting when the response is placed above all other, earlier comments. The general convention for response is indented under the actual remark. It can be very difficult to understand a single block that responds to a large number of comments.

Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (NOT Shouting) WADRH, one appreciates these copy edits, and notes your points - although the defence of the use of boxes made under 'homeopathy' still stands! Martin Cohen 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether it is shouting or not, the appropriate place to comment is after, not before, an earlier statement. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)