Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles

message: This page is important, so it should be fully protected! Thx! (P.S, The protect request box is at the top.) Carlitos Carrisoza (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already permanently semi-protected, which is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect It!

message: Hello, I'm not a contributor of the MOS, and I'm not really qualified as English isn't my first language, but I went through Nielsen Norman's Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts and I found it highly relevant for Wikipedia contributors : 
* "like general web readers, [experts] want content that is digestible, concise, and scannable" + "substance of the content (topics covered and the level of detail) and the importance of credibility"
* "Provide Facts, Avoid Interpretation"
* "Citations and Supporting Evidence Are Critical"
* "Experts Care About Recency" (stay updated)
* "[Jargon] Change the Rules for Plain Language" (less so, but as wikilinking demystifies technical terms, useful specialised terms can be used)
* "Grammar and Spelling Count" (of course, and wiki editing allows immediate correction)
* "Experts don’t read text linearly or completely" + "Experts don’t like fluffy content" + "Experts aren’t necessarily tech savvy" + "Experts appreciate shortcuts in content"
I contribute mainly to technical articles so I found those spot-on, but they can be applied to scientific articles and even cultural ones. I don't know if it could be used as a reference and where? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Digital Copy for Domain Experts 

message: Widefox, regarding this and this, it seems that you have an issue with the page's wording. I recommend fixing it instead of adding that tag since this is not a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to reconcile grammatically correct vs best practice. Someone else agrees with it being bad Talk:Flux (disambiguation)#Primary topic definition. I saw the tag wasn't ideal for WP space, but it does mention WP so it seems OK. Widefox; talk 21:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Widefox, I'm a bit confused on what you mean. I'm asking if you have an issue with the wording on the page. If so, how should we best word it so that we can remove the tag? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If I knew this minute I'd do it or say. Maybe we can just keep it as is, but explain that we don't use that wording, and link to the correct style at WP:DABINT (WP:MOSDAB) ? I'm working on the link I just gave above next, so I'm not doing this now. Widefox; talk 21:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Flyer22 Reborn is the tag not clear what the issue is? It's obviously contradictory advice compared to WP:DABINT / WP:MOSDAB, as linked, so this is incorrect style advice here as it should follow the MOS. The MOS is arguably grammatically incorrect, but as dabs aren't articles, maybe it's offtopic here anyhow. Widefox; talk 09:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just stating that whatever issue caused the tag addition should be remedied. Otherwise, the tag is likely to stay there for years. I have not yet thoroughly looked into what the issue is on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

text: This is a WP:JUSTFIXIT matter, so I just fixed it. If old essay text here with a disambiguation example no longer matches what the disambiguation guidelines say to do, then obviously change the example to match the guideline.  The essay cannot overrule the guidelines on how to do disambiguations.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction tag 

message: I just did a bit of an overhaul on WP:BETTER#Information style and tone, to:
* Cover persuasive writing (PR/marketing/debate/activism/propaganda) tone.
* Identify some additional tone and presentation problems that are common, including an example from a prominent article.
* Stop the essay from directly contradicting WP:NOT#NEWS policy (fixed by distinguishing news style in general from the inverted pyramid in particular).
* Make the WP:Brevity shortcut actually have a reason to point to that section, which never mentioned brevity (it still barely does; see below).
* Explain summary style on its own terms not just as something to compare to the inverted pyramid.
* Put standard practice before iffy practice.
* Move all the tone stuff in that section into the Tone subsection.
* Remove a patently false statement (that WP mimics the style of topical RSes, which would mean that our articles on rock stars would be written like those in Rolling Stone); replaced it with real advice (follow the style of FAs and GAs in the same category).
* Make it clear that lead sections are used regardless of summary vs. pyramid style.
* Do general clarification and copyediting.
Some further cleanup to do:
# Move more tone material from other sections of the page to Tone. WP:TONE should be a one-stop shop for that issue, but some tone bits are scattered around in other sections.
# Retarget the WP:Brevity shortcut to the WP:BETTER#Be concise section, since the "Information style and tone" section really has barely anything on the concept, and only mentions it at all because I just added it. We already have a whole section on it, which points to a whole main page on it.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Information style and tone" overhaul 

message: STEFFENM82 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017 

message: Jomontscb (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 16:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017 

message: Is there any policy guidance on this? Was about to change "her" to "its" on a windmill article until I saw the HTML comment "windmills are always referred to as 'she'", and checking other articles it looks like we do this for ships. Do we do it for windmills, and for anything else where there's a tradition of it? --Gapfall (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns of ships and other inanimate objects 

message: A user at Talk:Shammar#Shammar in Syria (, para 5) is arguing that sources being cited are off-topic. Where the main subject of a reliable source does differ from the article where it is being cited, should this policy prevent them from being cited? Batternut (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can sources be off-topic? 

message: How badly does an article require that its headings be spaced properly? For example, is it appropriate for articles to include the spaces between the equal signs and the heading text...
=== Like this? This has spaces between the "===" and the "L" and at the end of this. ===
Or do pages require...
===That the equal signs immediately touch the heading words?===
And also, is it necessary to hit a return between the heading of question and the body paragraphs above and below? The "Like this?" heading has a return line above and below, yet the "That the equal signs" have no return lines, so each line before and after that heading are left without gaps between them. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header spacing questions 

message: And also, is it necessary to hit a return between the heading of question and the body paragraphs above and below? The "Like this?" heading has a return line above and below, yet the "That the equal signs" have no return lines, so each line before and after that heading are left without gaps between them. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: That the equal signs immediately touch the heading words?

message: I have 2 different sources that are both from credible organizations that say the exact opposite of each other are true. How should I go about showing both ideas? Freedom4U (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Open a discussion on the article's talk page. Others interested in the topic may see a resolution of the apparent paradox that you're not seeing, have insight into source reliability, etc.` EEng 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have two contrasting facts. 

message: Dear Wikipedians,
I seem to recall that once upon a time, we were instructed to write articles at a high-school level. Does anyone know if I can find that guideline (if it still exists), or even if it ever existed at all? Thanks. Red Slash 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading level of the audience 

message: The section "First sentence format" ends with "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title." This is contradicted by MOS:BOLDAVOID which categorically advises against any linked terms in the bolded part. I think the latter is what's widely followed, so I suggest to rephrase this: "Use as few links as possible before and no links in the bolded title." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence format

message: In the last paragraph, the sentence (of the Tone section) is as follows:
"Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if we cannot explain to readers why something is important, then it is not important."
Which can be edited to: "Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia; if it cannot be  explained to readers why something is important, then it is not important." This is because "we" is giving rise to a self contradictory paragraph ( the whole paragraph talks about a formal style of writing and advises against using pronouns like we ). 2405:204:33A6:C902:7428:F697:34FE:454E
 Not done: This is a project page, not an article.  It's appropriate to use "we" here to refer to Wikipedia editors. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested edit of Tone section

message: We really need to discourage the use of this shortcut as an "explainer" in edit summaries. Writing only "per WP:XYZ" in an edit summary is fine when that shortcut leads to an immediately understandable "do" or "do not". 
But using WP:WBA in this manner amounts to "the article was bad and is now better", since this article discusses so very many different things. Which makes it not useful as an edit summary. CapnZapp (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using WP:WBA in edit summaries 

message: Y
!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 2409:4072:10F:E572:9DE3:5516:B029:3CBC (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm  08:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 

message: , and anyone else, I am confused by the recommendation to use . If it is ongoing at the time, but nobody edits the article for another year or two, and in the meantime, the statement is no longer current, doesn't this make it incorrect? I usually use  (using just year or month if more suitable), so that it is clear when reading the article, if not updated 5 years later, that the info could be incorrect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping, but the "currentyear" language was there before my edit. I just rephrased some of the language before that. --Macrakis (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Current" question

message: Just for clarification, should a fictional character's biography be entirely in the narrative present? Some material describes their history before their first appearance in the medium, and to me talking about that in past tense is fine. Would it be appropriate to mention everything from their first appearance onwards in the narrative present, and leave more leeway to narrative present or past tense for everything before that? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About WP:FICTENSE 

message: Muthvannakzin (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021 

message: Josephzaumoon (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021 

message: K- Series Marathi (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CptViraj (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022 

message: Manzihe (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Spellonline is not in the page right now? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022 

message: Mama1Gal (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is not an edit request.  If you need help please add a section to WP:Tea house and users can help you. Terasail[✉️] 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022 

message: The Paris Hilton example in the principle of least astonishment section about the use of hatnotes is confusing - it gives the history of the use of hatnotes in the article about Paris Hilton but it is extremely unclear to me what conclusion I am intended to draw from it about how hatnotes are best used. Breatheforpeace (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton example is confusing 

message: Is there a reason for this talk page to be semi-protected?  --Lambiam 08:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why semi-protected?