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#How to reply to an on going discussion.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#How to reply to an on going discussion. 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)

Well, I see a discussion about talk page formatting and that is why I brought it here, but then I also see information that talks about formatting text boxes and printing that look to be more about the article itself and continues a discussion from the forums and probably should be in CZ Talk:Article Mechanics, but then it goes back to indenting, then talks about editors putting things on top of the talk page, which again could go here (I have seen this in some policy page). All of these do not flow with Martin's comments, probably because you two are carrying a conversation among more than one article talkpage, which again, is why I brought it here - to consolidate it all here. Am I making any sense to you? D. Matt Innis 06:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't on more than one article talkpage. I'd make a comment and Martin would respond at totally different pages. Often, he'd put the response at the very top of the section, just as he inserted "what this page is about" at its top, in responses to questions asked in chronological order.

My point, I think, is very straightforward, although you may want this to go to email. The policy on this CZ page says to put comments below the comment to which the response is being made. That didn't happen. There are times when, I believe, he moved blocks of my comments.

Yes or no: does CZ:How to use talk pages#How to reply to an on going discussion state that comments are to be made at the bottom of that to which they are responding? It's hard to follow because Martin, for whatever reasons, will put comments out of order, do strange changes in indentation, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We should probably discuss this here so that the community can help decide what they want to do, though you can certainly clarify in emails if you think it will help. Are we talking about the section that Martin placed at the top of the page - Talk:Alternative medicine (theories)#What this page is. I saw that as an editor's comment on top of the article talk page that is suggested in CZ:The Editor Role#Guiding articles. D. Matt Innis 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Martin's responses are often really hard to follow. I usually have to go to the history and walk through the various additions one by one as it is often the only way to get attributions correct. I suggest that replies are indented and AFTER the original message. Too much interlacing becomes impossible to follow. One can always cite the specific point in italics or quotes to give context. Alternatively, if it is a complex issue, set up a thread on the forums. Chris Day 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, and one I agree makes things easier to follow. It may take a little extra work for the one who writes, but makes it so mich easier for the reader. Of course, we are just using this text as an example, because I think we have all done it to some degree. Does this have to go through the editorial council? D. Matt Innis 19:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt, a question. You have referred to "policy". I assumed that the CZ:How to use talk pages#How to reply to an on going discussion section qualified as policy. Is this not the case? If it is the case, I am reading it as rather unambiguous as far as the preferred way to participate in talk pages.

Yes, we've all broken the rule from time to time. Once I was cautioned about it, including, ironically, by Pierre-Alain, I make an effort not to do it. If I have a short, specific response that really would need a lot of text to explain afterward, if I violate it, I make a point of copying signatures before and after, so it is unambigious who is saying what. Nevertheless, I was asked not to do it; it appears to me that this CZ page sets the rules; and, especially Martin's comments directly under the heading "Chronological Order" are defiant and inflammatory.

To me, the rules seem rather clear, even before getting into Chris' observation, with which I completely agree, that it's simply hard to read the interspersed comment. If the "How to use" page isn't policy, what is? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Howard, now your entering editorial committee and executive committee territory. I am only a fellow citizen when we consider such things away from the article pages. My opinion would be that we should not give the impression that talk page formatting is anything but suggestion to make it easier for anyone to follow. In that sense, I agree that it is hard to follow text that is inserted into discussions, especially when not adding a signature. But, to say that we are going to discipline or admonish a user because he/she does something different seems extreme. I am particularly concerned that several of our more mature editors have habits that are not conventional, and may not even understand the wiki process well. If we want them to put their real name on a text, we don't need to be embarrassing them on the talk page about something that has nothing to do with the content for which they are giving of themselves. I don't think talk page formatting needs to be policy, but that is just my opinion, and it could change with a convincing argument. I fI have misinterpreted something, do set me straight. Also, of course, if the editorial committee or executive committee decided differently, then I would act accordingly as a constable. They both have procedures to follow to make such decisions. D. Matt Innis 01:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the CZ pages are supposed to be suggestions, let them say so: does this say "this is a suggestion on how to use a talk page", or does it say "this is how to use a talk page?" Is there a policy section somewhere that I've missed? I politely suggested to the user that he was doing things that were hard to read. His response was to do it even more obviously.

I would suggest looking at major professional mailing lists, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force or North American Network Operators' Group. No one minds if there's a quick flip comment on top, but bottom posting is a norm when the purpose of the mailing list, forum, etc., is to work toward a goal. Bottom posting is the equivalent of writing a book from beginning to end, as opposed to back to front and graffiti in the middle. It's basic from a human factors standpoint.

If I don't respond to reasonable suggestions, then I take any embarrassment that comes with the territory. There was a reasonable request to do something that is common in a huge number of electronic forums. It got nowhere. It's the broken window school of urban renewal, I suppose. In this case, if I were baby-sitting, I'd call it limit testing.

I have been asked not to intersperse comments, and I avoided doing so, not because it was policy but it seemed reasonable courtesy when asked. In this case, I honestly believe this page sets a rule, which is not being enforced. The individual involved is defiant about doing it his way. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

There is more than one issue here. If you look at the Homeopathy page, Larry boxed his rulings, and made a formal set of behavioral rulings, in a tense situation, and clearly identifying that he was speaking officially, on the substance of the discussion. Please compare and contrast Larry's response in Homeopathy, and relative diplomacy, with this comment in Alternative Medicine (theories). I also drew attention and asked for nocomplaints on an accusation that another page was drawn from another, which it was not.

Especially the points below, under "chronological order" had nothing to do with the content of the discussion, but behavior. They are blatant violation of CZ:How to use talk pages#How to reply to an on going discussion. Further on in the discussion, he continued to put responses on top of the discussion, in the middle of comments, with widely varying indentations, and in general behaving in a manner violating the cited link.

I really don't want to go back through the article and logs and give you every example, but I will if necessary. Further, I will make the statement, which I believe you have asked to stay in public, that there is every reason to believe that repeatedly ignoring a simple, mechanical rule is, at best, a desire not to comply with rules and generally try to be a bully. Further, I believe he has done this in other articles, as well as deleting the text of things, on the talk page, that disagreed with him.

Now, as far as the comment, about two weeks ago, about the purpose of the article, that might have been put at the top by an editor, as a calm set of points such as Larry's in homeopathy. Instead, it was a diatribe.

Also apropos of responses following comments, you will also note numerous places where Pierre-Alain interspersed them, with bold comments, but not infrequently interspersing them between others' responses. Again, I simply ask for enforcement of CZ:How to use talk pages#How to reply to an on going discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The issues about sourcing are another matter, as well as original research, and I believe there are problems in both. Aside from policy, I consider the responses flippant, unprofessional, and inflammatory. Martin is effectively encouraging violations by others that agree with the substance of his theories, not a neutral editorial role. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:07, 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. [1]; 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)