Talk:Git (disambiguation)

message: Because of this record of yet another distinct meaning of GIT (the abbreviation), it should be added to the abbreviation disambiguation section. 84.140.85.246 20:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: Please discuss what you think is disputable.   If you go to: http://stats.grok.se/  you will see there is no comparison.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see wiki statistics as really being helpful here - WIkipedia has a well known bias towards comp science types in it's userbase so  comp science terms are always going to rate highly. Evidence that it is the most accpeted use of the word"git" in the English speaking world it is not. Artw (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With similar disputes in the past, editors decide on what article a reader is most likely looking for.    It is based on what is best for the wikipedian user.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  per [[wp:mosdab]] most common usage at top 

message: I reverted to the last good version, due to Krauss's  which changed good section names to bad - jumbling the dab. I restored all subsequent edits that I agreed with. Sweepy  lede using "G.I.T." see WP:MOSDAB "However, it is not necessary to mention minor variations of capitalization, punctuation or diacritics". An a-b sort may be worth it, but we can do any sort per MOSDAB and the git software entry may be handy at the top (per above discussion). Hope that explains as there was several edits post-corrupt sectioning. Regards Widefox; talk 08:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Froid. Discuss here (2nd ping after undo). This  has 1. longer section headings, 2. PTM (above), 3. ignoring comments and talk 4. "Fixing style/layout errors" is not a correct edit summary when redoing / changing edits - please use more accurate summaries rather than the same one multiple times. Pls discuss here before redoing your controversial edits. Widefox; talk 07:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Places on top, followed by names, then followed by other categories is the most common Wikipedia disambiguation page order, except for pages when another category or type of usage is demonstrably the most commonly used for a given item.  However, since you seem wedded to keeping the status quo in terms of category layouts and I don't feel strongly about that, I did not dispute your reversion on that basis.  However, I DO dispute your unwillingness to combine art, entertainment, and media items into a single category, with the music items collected into a subcategory thereof.  Please justify your changing my work to achieve that outcome. Also, the explanation I chose was perfectly fine:  (1) that's why it's a choice among the commonly used edit summaries selections, and (2) I didn't make so many changes or different types of changes that would make it difficult to follow the changes I made. Rather, you seem to feel an inordinate sense of ownership for this page and are obstructing other editors' efforts to improve it.Froid (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Places on top.." - can you point out in WP:MOSDAB where that consensus is? Currently I see it saying sort the sections typically alphabetically. This is a fairly new edit that is an oversimplification (as shown by a recent mass ab sorting editor being blocked). I will take that up with MOSDAB to clarify (but the history may help). "Places" has a village and two redlinks, hardly useful for readers! For longer section names see above and edit summaries for multiple reasons. The burden is on the editor, not the reverter, so please state your case and we can come to a compromise per normal (addressing each others concerns). Widefox; talk 10:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries like this  "Fixing style/layout errors Adding/removing category/ies" which are not in line with MOSDAB (e.g. PTM go in see also, not good to create sections with low number of entries), are incorrect summaries in my book. Reusing the same edit summary "Fixing style/layout errors"     goes further in that it doesn't help collaborate as it certainly isn't what it says - MOSDAB based and gives others no insight into what it is. Widefox; talk 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad section names

message: User:Froid This edit  sorted with Places at the top, and took out the See also entry (the correct place for a WP:PTM), created several small sections against WP:MOSDAB. This ignores all the comments, so I undid it manually. I don't think readers want the village in Iran or these other places the most. Widefox; talk 11:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Froid. Discuss here (2nd ping after undo). This  has 1. longer section headings, 2. PTM (above), 3. ignoring comments and talk 4. "Fixing style/layout errors" is not a correct edit summary when redoing / changing edits - please use more accurate summaries rather than the same one multiple times. Pls discuss here before redoing your controversial edits. Widefox; talk 07:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Places on top, followed by names, then followed by other categories is the most common Wikipedia disambiguation page order, except for pages when another category or type of usage is demonstrably the most commonly used for a given item.  However, since you seem wedded to keeping the status quo in terms of category layouts and I don't feel strongly about that, I did not dispute your reversion on that basis.  However, I DO dispute your unwillingness to combine art, entertainment, and media items into a single category, with the music items collected into a subcategory thereof.  Please justify your changing my work to achieve that outcome. Also, the explanation I chose was perfectly fine:  (1) that's why it's a choice among the commonly used edit summaries selections, and (2) I didn't make so many changes or different types of changes that would make it difficult to follow the changes I made. Rather, you seem to feel an inordinate sense of ownership for this page and are obstructing other editors' efforts to improve it.Froid (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Places on top.." - can you point out in WP:MOSDAB where that consensus is? Currently I see it saying sort the sections typically alphabetically. This is a fairly new edit that is an oversimplification (as shown by a recent mass ab sorting editor being blocked). I will take that up with MOSDAB to clarify (but the history may help). "Places" has a village and two redlinks, hardly useful for readers! For longer section names see above and edit summaries for multiple reasons. The burden is on the editor, not the reverter, so please state your case and we can come to a compromise per normal (addressing each others concerns). Widefox; talk 10:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit summaries like this  "Fixing style/layout errors Adding/removing category/ies" which are not in line with MOSDAB (e.g. PTM go in see also, not good to create sections with low number of entries), are incorrect summaries in my book. Reusing the same edit summary "Fixing style/layout errors"     goes further in that it doesn't help collaborate as it certainly isn't what it says - MOSDAB based and gives others no insight into what it is. Widefox; talk 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort

message: I've started a discussion regarding the move of this article from it's former location here, it would be good if we could have some people who are not software developers weigh in. Artw (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages appear to have over back to their original locations. Artw (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudden move 

message: when I searched for git this didn't come up. it did come up when I searched for gits. 84.71.45.82 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  finding this